Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Sheikh Mohammad Hussain And vs Atal Dulloo And Ors on 23 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
ZSerial No.01
REGULAR LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CCP(D) 6/2024 in[WP(C) 1722/2021]
SHEIKH MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
ORS
Through: Mr. R.A. Jan, Sr. Advocate with
Ms Humaira Sajad, Advocate
Vs.
ATAL DULLOO AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Ms Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice
Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG
Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG with
Mr. Mohd Younis, Assisting Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDE R
23.05.2025
Per Sanjeev Kumar-J (oral):
1. This is a petition for initiating contempt proceeding against willful
disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 10th August,
2023, passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 1722/2021, whereby this
Court while allowing the petition and modifying the impugned
order dated 22nd March, 2021, passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, CAT, Srinagar Bench, ["the Tribunal"],
has issued directions that the Chief Engineers and other higher
ranking Engineers shall be entitled to a corresponding higher pay
scale than the one given to the Superintending Engineers. The
exercise shall be undertaken by the authorities as early as possible
preferably within a period of three months.
2. In compliance with the judgment, the respondents have issued SO
Arif Hameed
I attest to the accuracy and No. 83, dated 8th April, 2025, whereby the Lieutenant Governor, in
authenticity of this document
exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution of India, has issued SO No.83 revising the pay
scale of Engineer-in-Chief/any other post above the Chief
Engineer, from Pay Level-13A (131100-2166800) to Pay Level-14
(144200-218200) in the relevant Recruitment Rules governing the
post. The direction contained in para 14 of the judgment dated 10th
August, 2023, passed the Court was clear and unequivocal. For
facility of reference para 14 is set out below:
"Accordingly we allow this petition by modifying the
order impugned dated 22.03.2021 passed by the CAT
with the direction that the Chief Engineers and other
higher ranking engineers shall be entitled to
corresponding higher pay scale than the one given to
Superintending Engineers. The said exercise shall be
undertaken by the authorities as early as possible
preferably within a period of three months. We also
make it clear that if any of the present petitioners are
entitled to the benefit of higher pay scale, the same
shall be granted to them."
3. From a reading of paragraph 14, it clearly transpires that the order
of the Tribunal dated 22nd March, 2021, whereby a direction was
issued to the respondents to consider the representation for grant of
retrospective benefit, has been modified, and a direction has been
issued to the respondents to place the Chief Engineers and other
higher ranking Engineers in the corresponding higher pay scale
than one given to the Superintending Engineers. The direction was
to undertake the exercise and complete the same preferably within
a period of three months.
4. The respondents have undertaken the exercise and have issued SO
No. 83, amending the relevant Recruitment Rules and revising the
pay scale of the Chief Engineers and above, with the
corresponding amendment in the relevant Recruitment Rules.
5. In our considered opinion, the judgment passed by this Court
stands implemented. As a consequence of issuance of SO No. 83
dated 8th April, 2025, which has come into operation w.e.f 7th
August, 2024, anybody holding the post of Chief Engineer and
above w.e.f 7th August, 2024, is entitled to the benefit of higher
pay scale.
6. The contention of learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners that the benefit of SO No. 83 of 2025 ought to have
been given with retrospective effect from the date the revision of
pay scale of Superintending Engineer took place, is an argument
which cannot be accepted in the face of the clear and unequivocal
language used by this Court in the judgment dated 10 th August,
2024.
7. For all these reasons, we find no merit to proceed with this
contempt petition and contempt proceedings are, accordingly,
closed. We, however, leave it open to the petitioners to call in
question the SO No. 83 of 2025, if they are so aggrieved and so
advised, in accordance with law.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
23.05.2025
"ARIF"
Whether the ORDER is Reportable? Yes/No.
