Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Territory Of J&K And Ors vs Kakay Ram And Ors on 12 July, 2021
Sr. No. 219
(After Notice Cause list)
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
LPA No. 04/2020
CM No. 63/2020
CM No. 64/2020
In
LPASW No. 157/2016
IA No. 1/2016
LPASW No. 158/2016
IA No. 1/2016
Union Territory of J&K and ors. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. H. A. Siddiqui, Sr. AAG
In LPA No. 4/2020
Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Assisting counsel
In LPASW Nos. 157/2016 & 158/2016
Vs
Kakay Ram and ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. H. A. Siddiqui, Sr. AAG
In LPASW Nos. 157/2016 & 158/2016
Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Assisting counsel
In LPA No. 4/2020
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
ORDER
12.07.2021
(Open Court)
LPA No. 04/2020
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in
SWP No. 2421/2012.
2. The petitioners through the medium of above writ petition sought
quashing of the order dated 01.03.2011, whereby an amount of ₹ 64,620/- was
directed to be recovered from the petitioner No. 3 on the ground that he was not
entitled for in-situ promotion under SRO 14 of 1996. Similar recovery
proceedings initiated against the other petitioners were also sought to be
quashed. Mandamus was also sought directing the respondents-appellants
herein to grant the benefit of release of pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 (pre-revised)
in favour of the petitioners w.e.f. the dates of their appointment as Medical
Assistants/Pharmacists. Mandamus was also sought directing the respondents-
appellants herein to grant second in-situ promotion in favour of petitioner Nos. 1
& 2 w.e.f. 01.11.2011 and in favour of petitioner No.3 w.e.f. 24.02.2012. The
recovery of amount from the petitioners was sought to be made on the ground
that the petitioners had been conferred with the benefit of SRO 18 dated
19.01.1998 and placed in the higher grade of 4000-6000 (pre-revised) as such,
they were not entitled to the benefit of in-situ promotion under SRO 14 of 1996.
3. All the petitioners had been appointed as Medical Assistants on
different dates between 1993 and 1997 in the pay scale of 950-1500. By virtue
of SRO 75 dated 30.03.1992, the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 attached with the
post of Medical Assistant was upgraded to Rs. 1200-2040, however, fresh
appointments were to be made in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and after putting
in eight years of service the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 was to be granted. In
terms of SRO 18 dated 19.01.1998 which was made effective retrospectively
w.e.f. 1st of January, 1996, the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 was revised to Rs.
4000-6000 and pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 was revised to Rs. 3050-4910 in terms
of Rule 15 of the aforementioned SRO. The Medical Assistants who were
holding the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 were to be placed in the grade of Rs.
4000-6000 and the fresh appointments to the posts of Medical Assistants were to
be made in the grade of Rs. 3050-4910 and after putting in eight years of
service, a Medical Assistant would be placed in the pay scale of 4000-6000. In
terms of SRO 81 of 2006 dated 07.03.2006 a proviso was inserted after Rule
15(C) of SRO 18 dated 19.01.1998, whereby the disparity was sought to be
removed by placing all the Medical Assistants/Pharmacists carrying the pay
scale of Rs. 3050-4910, in the pay scale of 4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.04.2005. The
said proviso is reproduced below:-
"Provided that all the Medical Assistants
(Pharmacist) carrying the revised pay scale of Rs.
3050-4910/- shall be w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 placed in
the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. Future recruitment
to the post of Medical Assistants (Pharmacist) will
be made in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-"
4. The case setup by the petitioners before the Writ Court was that they
were not at all given the benefit of in-situ promotion rather they were given the
benefit of higher pay scale after completing the tenure of eight years as Medical
Assistants in terms of SRO 75 of 1992 read with SRO 18 of 1998.
5. Admittedly, the placement of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 was not
allowed in terms of Rule 3 (ii) (g) of SRO 14 dated 15.01.1996 dealing with
in-situ promotions, rather it was only a placement in higher grade in terms of
SRO 75 of 1992 read with SRO 18 of 1998 after putting in eight years' of
service. The action of the appellants in taking away the benefit already conferred
upon the petitioners-respondents herein, therefore, appears to be totally non-est
in the eyes of law.
6. In our opinion, the benefit of placement in a higher pay scale by virtue
of SRO 81 of 2006 dated 07.03.2006 was only for purposes of removal of
disparity in the pay scale of Medical Assistants. As the SRO 75 of 1992 read
with SRO 18 of 1998 did not remove disparity, but it was a benefit to the
Medical Assistants regarding the placement of their services in higher pay scale
notwithstanding the fact that the disparity continued to exist till the issuance of
SRO 81 of 2006. The issue of in-situ promotion, therefore, did not arise at all in
the present case and, therefore, any attempt on the part of the appellants to effect
any recovery from the petitioners-respondents herein was, therefore, totally
erroneous and un-justified as has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge.
7. The present appeal is, therefore, found to be without merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
LPASW No. 157/2016 & LPASW No. 158/2016
Both the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn in view of the fact that
liberty as granted by the learned Single Judge for purposes of challenging the
proviso of SRO 18 of 1998 Rule 15(C) has since been availed of by the
petitioners, appellants in the above LPAs.
(Puneet Gupta) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge Judge
Jammu
12.07.2021
Shammi
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
MUNEESH SHARMA
2021.07.19 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
