Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ut Of J&K Th vs Mr. Mohal Lal on 6 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3216-DB
Serial No. 42
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 2779/2025
1. UT of J&K th. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Commissioner/Secretary to Govt.,
Health & Medical Education Deptt.
(ISM), Civil Secretariat,
Srinagar/Jammu-180001.
2. Director General, Indian Systems of
Medicine, Jammu-180005.
3. Assistant District Medical Officer
ISM, Kishtwar-182204.
4. Assistant District Medical Officer
ISM, Doda-182202.
Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with
Ms. Jagmeet Kour, Advocate
vs
1. Mr. Mohal Lal, Age 63 years, ..... Respondent(s)
S/o Sh. Jai Saran, R/o Sharoti,
Tehsil Drabshalla, District Kishtwar.
2. Mr. Tek Chand, Age 64
S/o Sh. Tej Ram,
R/o Allangotra, Tehsil Gandoh
District Doda.
Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
06.10.2025
Sanjeet Kumar 'J'
1. Impugned in this petition, filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir and others under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is
an order and judgment dated 21.04.2025 passed by the Central
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3216-DB
Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu ["the Tribunal"] in
OA No. 570/2021 titled Mohan Lal & Anr. Vs. U.T. of J&K & Ors.
whereby the Tribunal has quashed the order impugned in O.A. dated
22.02.2016 passed by petitioner no. 2 and held the respondents herein
entitled to first and second in-situ promotions with monetary benefits
from the date they have been permitted notionally.
2. Briefly stated the facts, which led to the filing of this petition, are that
the respondents were appointed as Nursing Orderlies in ISM (Indian
Systems of Medicine) Department on substantive basis and during
their entire service career, they were not granted any
substantive/functional promotion. They were, thus, entitled to in-situ
promotions under Rule 5 of the J&K Civil Services (Higher Standard
pay Scale Scheme) Rules 1996 (the Rules of 1996) issued vide SRO
14 of 1996. The cases of the respondents for first and second in-situ
promotions were not considered in time and the respondent No. 1 was
granted first in-situ promotion w.e.f. 01.04.1995 notionally and second
in-situ promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2004 notionally. However, he was given
third in-situ promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2013 monetarily. Similarly,
respondent no. 2 was granted first in-situ promotion w.e.f. 01.10.1995
notionally, second in-situ promotion w.e.f. 01.10.2004 notionally.
However, third in-situ promotion, in favour of respondent No. 2, was
granted w.e.f. 01.10.2013 monetarily.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3216-DB
3. Since the respondents were not given the monetary benefits of their
first and second in-situ promotions, as such, they approached the
Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 570/2021. They also claimed the
monetary benefits of their in-situ promotions on the analogy of other
similarly situated employees like Riaz Ahmed and Mohd. Rafi. The
O.A. was contested by the petitioners herein, who submitted that since
there was delay in processing the cases of the respondents for first and
second in-situ promotions and therefore, they were given the said in-
situ promotions notionally without any monetary benefits. It was
pleaded that under the Rules of 1996, there is no provision for granting
the in-situ promotions retrospectively.
4. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and material
placed on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the delay, if
any, in granting the benefit of in-situ promotions to the respondents,
was attributable to the petitioners and therefore, the respondents could
not have been prejudiced or subjected to monetary loss.
5. The impugned order, whereby the claim of the respondents for grant of
in-situ promotions with the monetary benefits stood rejected, was,
thus, quashed and a direction, as we have referred hereinabove, was
issued.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the view
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3216-DB
taken by the Tribunal is perfectly legal and unexceptional in the given
facts and circumstances of the case. There is no dispute with regard to
the fact that delay in issuing the formal orders for grant of first and
second in-situ promotions in favour of respondents was wholly and
entirely attributable to the petitioners and that being the position, the
respondents could not have been punished for no fault of theirs.
7. There is no obligation cast upon an employee to stake his/her claim for
in-situ promotion supported by any documents. It is for the employer
to consider the case as per the available service record with it and in
accordance with screening mechanism provided for regular promotion.
8. It is only if the employee is under suspension on the date of eligibility
or is charge-sheeted under J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules 1956 or any other rules for the purpose, the
promotion in-situ can be denied. Rule 12 of J&K Civil Services
(Higher Standard Pay Scale Scheme) Rules, 1996 prescribes the
competent authority and the procedure to be followed to grant
promotion in-situ. It reads thus:
12.Authority competent to grant Higher Grade Pay Scale-
procedure therefor
a) The Appointing Authority for the post of Higher Grade Scale
shall be competent to grant Higher Grade Scale to eligible
employee(s);
b) At the time of granting Higher Grade Scale the existing screening
mechanism for promotion shall be applied;
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3216-DB
c) No Higher Grade Scale shall be granted to the employee who is
under suspension on the date of eligibility or who is charge-
sheeted under provisions of J&K classification, Control & Appeal
Rules, or any other Rules for the purpose. However, when the
employee is exonerated in a departmental enquiry against
him/her and reinstated on duty, the Higher Grade Pay Scale shall
be granted on the basis of eligibility on completion of 9, 18/27
years incremental period of service as the case may be.
d) An employee otherwise eligible for grant of 'Promotion In-Situ'
under these Rules shall be deemed to have been exempted from
passing the prescribed departmental/any other examination for
purposes of grant of 'Promotion In-Situ' only. However, if the
employee wants to get the actual functional promotion on Higher
post, he/she shall have to pass the prescribed departmental
examination:
e) Such period of leave without pay/other allowances as has not
been agreed by the Competent Authority to be counted for
purposes of Annual increments shall not be taken into account
for reckoning of the period of 9, 18/27 years for Higher Grade
Pay Scale as the case may be;
f) The service of surplus employee(s) due to discontinuance,
abolition of post(s) in the former Department/office shall not be
taken into account;
g) g.........................................................
9. In the instant case, the sub-ordinate office of the petitioners, which
was supposed to process the case of the respondents for first and
second in-situ promotions in time failed to do so and as a result,
whereof, the claim of the respondents for in-situ promotions was
considered belatedly. The petitioners have very fairly granted the
benefits of first and second in-situ promotions to the respondents from
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3216-DB
the dates it was due to them, but, have, without any reason or
justification, granted the benefit notionally only.
10. We are, therefore, on all fours with the Tribunal that the monetary
benefits accruing from the first and second in-situ promotions granted
by the petitioners to the respondents cannot be denied without doing
violence to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this petition and the same is,
accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
Jammu
06.10.2025
Vishal Sharma
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
