Ut Of J&K And Others vs Rita Sehgal And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 1973 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Ut Of J&K And Others vs Rita Sehgal And Others on 8 September, 2025

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

                                                                         Sr. No. 4



       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                       AT JAMMU

WP(C) No. 2411/2025
CAV No. 1999/2025

UT of J&K and others                                    .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)

                                 Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG

                         v/s
Rita Sehgal and others                                             .....Respondent(s)

                                 Through :- Mr. Siddhant Gupta, Advocate


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

                                  ORDER

08.09.2025

1. With appearance of Mr. Siddhant Gupta, learned counsel for the caveators,

caveat stands discharged.

WP(C) No. 2411/2025

1. This petition, filed by the Union Territory of J&K, under Article 225 of the

Constitution of India, is directed against an order and judgment dated

24.09.2024, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench,

Jammu ("the Tribunal"), in O.A. No. 115/2024, titled "Rita Sehgal and

others v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and another", whereby

the Tribunal has, while disposing of the O.A., directed the petitioners

herein to reconsider the case of the respondents in the light of Government

Order No. 141 of JK(PDD) of 2023 dated 21.11.2023.

2. The impugned judgment is challenged by the petitioners on multiple

grounds. However, before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by

learned Senior AAG appearing for the petitioners, we deem it appropriate

to give a brief resume of the background facts.

3. The respondents came to be appointed as Data Entry Operators vide

Government Order No. 317-F of 1998 dated 11.12.1998, in the then pay

scale of Rs. 4000-6000, and were assigned to serve in the Excise and State

Taxes Department. The counterparts of the respondents, who, as per the

respondents, were also appointed as Computer Operators to perform

similar duties, were assigned different departments like Power

Development Department (PDD) and Forest Department in the Union

Territory of J&K. So far as the Computer Operators who were assigned to

serve the Department of Forest are concerned, they were appointed in the

higher pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 (pre-revised), whereas the respondents

herein, who were posted in Excise and State Taxes Department and those

posted in PDD were placed in the lower pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 (pre-

revised). It is the case of the respondents that their counterparts working in

the PDD approached this Court by way of SWP No. 1911/2013, titled

"Anil Raina and others v. State of J&K and others", for seeking pay parity

with their counterparts working in various departments. The litigation

launched by Anil Raina and others, who were working as Computer

Operators/Data Entry Operators in the PDD, was decided finally in their

favour, and they were held entitled to pay parity with their counterparts

working in the Department of Forest. The judgment passed by this Court

dated 20.07.2016, after it attained finality, was implemented by the

petitioners by issuing Government Order dated 141 of JK(PDD) of 2023

dated 21.11.2023. The Computer Operators/Data Entry Operators working

in the Department of PDD were held entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs.

6500-10500 (pre-revised), which was being paid to their counterparts in

the Department of Forest.

4. The respondents herein, claiming to be similarly situated with their

counterparts working in various Government Departments too, had filed

petition i.e. SWP No. 1833/2002, titled "B.K. Sudan and others v. State of

J&K and others", which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated

14.10.2010, directing the petitioners herein to accord consideration to the

representation of the respondents for release of grade and take a decision in

the matter within a period of twelve weeks. It seems that the consideration

was not accorded to the representation of the respondents for a pretty long

time and this constrained the respondents to file CPSW No. 56/2012,

alleging non-compliance. During the pendency of the contempt petition,

the petitioners passed a consideration order i.e. Government Order No.

255-F of 2023 dated 26.12.2023, rejecting the claim of the respondents for

pay parity with their counterparts working in other departments. On the

other hand, the petition filed by Anil Raina and others working in various

departments stood disposed of on merits vide order dated 20.07.2016, to

which we have made reference hereinabove.

5. Be that as it may, faced with the order of rejection passed through

Government Order dated 26.12.2023, the respondents filed O.A. No. 115

of 2024. The O.A. was contested by the respondents by filing their

objections. Having considered the matter in the light of pleadings of both

the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that fresh order of

consideration in the light of Government Order No. 141 of JK(PDD) of

2023 dated 21.11.2023, was required to be passed and, accordingly, the

OA was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to accord

consideration to the case of the respondents afresh, keeping in view the

Government Order No. 141 of JK(PDD) of 2023 dated 21.11.2023. It is

this judgment passed by the Tribunal on 24.09.2024, which is called in

question in this petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are

of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned, directing the

petitioners to reconsider the claim of the respondents in the light of

Government Order dated 21.11.2023 (supra), is not sustainable in absence

of the Tribunal returning a specific finding that the respondents are either

on a par with their counterparts serving in the Department of Forest or

those serving in the PDD. The Tribunal was also required to return a

specific finding as to whether the case of respondents was covered by the

Government Order dated 21.11.2023, and that respondents were entitled to

the same benefit as was accorded to other counterparts working in the PDD

Department. In the absence of any discussion on merits and also in the

absence of any specific finding returned on the issues raised before the

Tribunal, the direction to reconsider the case in the light of Government

Order dated 21.11.2023 was totally uncalled for.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we find merit in this petition and same is

accordingly allowed. The judgment passed by the Tribunal is set aside.

We, however, clarify that reconsideration order passed by the petitioners

i.e. Government Order No. 118-FD of 2025 dated 08.04.2025, which has

been passed in compliance with the judgment we have set aside, has been

rendered otiose and is deserved to be ignored. The matter is remanded back

to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter and decide the same after

addressing the merits of controversy, keeping in view the observations we

made hereinabove. Having regard to the fact that this litigation was started

by the respondents in the year 2002, we would request the Tribunal to

rehear the matter and decide the same at the earliest, preferably within a

period of two months from today.

8. Disposed of.

                          (Sanjay Parihar)                   (Sanjeev Kumar)
                              Judge                                Judge

JAMMU
08.09.2025
Vishal Khajuria



                         Whether the order is speaking:      Yes/No

                         Whether the order is reportable:    Yes/No