Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Union Territory Of J&K Through vs Hilal Ahmad Wani S/O Gh. Mohd. Wani R/O on 14 August, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 11.08.2025
Pronounced on:14.08.2025
CJ Court
WP(C) No.1896/2025
1. Union Territory of J&K through
Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Public
Works (R&B) Department, Civil Secretariate,
Srinagar/Jammu.
2. Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Finance
Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
3. Chief Engineer, MED, Srinagar.
...PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. A. R. Malik, Sr. AAG.
Vs.
1. Hilal Ahmad Wani s/o Gh. Mohd. Wani R/o
Qazipora District Bandipora.
2. Gh. Nabi Dar S/o Abdul Khaliq Dar R/o
Noorpora Tral District Pulwama.
3. Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat S/o Ghulam Hassan
Bhat R/o Noorpora Tral District Pulwama.
4. Tariq Rasool Bhat s/o Ghulam Rasool Bhat
R/o Aragam District Bandipora.
5. Zaffar Rasool Bhat S/o Ghulam Rasool
Bhat R/o Aragam District Baramulla.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. N. A. Tabassum, Advocate, with
Mr. M. Idrees, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
OSWAL 'J'
1) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
WP(C) No.1896/2025 1|Page
2) The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated
03.10.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Srinagar Bench (for short "the Tribunal") in OA
No.1338/2021 titled "Hilal Ahmad Wani and others vs. UT
of J&K and others" whereby order dated 28.06.2021 in
respect of rejection of claim of the respondents for grant of
higher pay scale of Rs.5150-8300, was quashed and further
the petitioners herein have been directed to grant benefits
to the respondents herein by fixing their pay in the scale of
Rs.5150-8300 from the date of their appointment against the
post of Draftsman.
3) The order (supra) of the Tribunal has been impugned
by the petitioners on the grounds that speaking order dated
28.06.2021 was passed by them after examining the case of
the respondents in its entirety and the case of the
respondents was completely distinct and different from that
of the petitioners in Sham Paul Randhawa's case and, as
such, could not have been considered on the same footing.
It is further urged that the respondents were appointed in
the scale of Rs.4000-6000 (pre-revised) and once they
accepted the appointment fully knowing the conditions of
service and Recruitment Rules, they are not entitled to the
higher pay scale.
WP(C) No.1896/2025 2|Page
4) The order impugned depicts that TA No.1350/2021
was also disposed of along with OA Nos.851/2021 and
1338/2021 in terms of the same order. The petitioners had
assailed the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 by filing
WP(C) No.625/2024 titled UT of J&K and others vs.
Mohammad Maqbool and ors. arising out of TA
No.1350/2021 but without any success as the said writ
petition was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench vide order
dated 28.07.2025. The Coordinate Bench, while dismissing
the aforesaid petition preferred by the petitioners, observed
as under:
"We have gone through the entire judgment passed
by the Tribunal and we are of the view that the
Tribunal has only following the judgment passed by
this Court in favour of similarly situated Draftsmen
and has rightly concluded that the respondents
cannot be discriminated in the matter of giving the
pay scale of Rs.5150-8300, for the reasons that they
are similarly situated with hundreds of other
Draftsmen who are already enjoying the pay scale of
Rs.5150-8300. The judgment passed by this court in
case titled "State of J&K and Ors. vs. Sheikh Rashid
Ahmad and Ors." LPASW No.84/2016 decided on
14.02.2019 and, therefore, does not suffer any legal
infirmity."
5) Another Coordinate Bench (incidentally in which one of
us 'Oswal, J' was a member) has also considered the same
controversy in WP(C) No.2828/2023 and dismissed the writ
petition preferred by the petitioners on the same grounds,
which weighed with the Coordinate Bench while dismissing
WP(C) No.625/2024.
WP(C) No.1896/2025 3|Page
6) Apart from the above, the petitioners have not been
able to demonstrate that the case of the respondents was
distinct qua the case of petitioners in Sham Paul
Randhawa's case, which formed the basis of decision in
other writ petitions.
7) In view of the above, we do not find any reason to show
indulgence. The writ petition is found to be misconceived
and is dismissed accordingly.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Srinagar
14.08.2025
"Bhat Altaf"
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No
WP(C) No.1896/2025 4|Page
