Ut Of J & K Acting Through Commissioner vs Mohit Singh Langeh S/O Lt. Babishan ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 292 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Ut Of J & K Acting Through Commissioner vs Mohit Singh Langeh S/O Lt. Babishan ... on 3 February, 2026

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

                                                                             Sr. No. 57

                                                                                   2026:JKLHC-JMU:173-DB

        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

                                         WP (C) No. 180/2026
                                               Date of pronouncement: 03.02.2026
                                               Date of uploading

1. UT of J & K Acting through Commissioner
   Secretary to the Govt. Agriculture
   Production, Civil Secretariat Jammu.
2. Director Animal Husbandry Department,
   Jammu                                                   .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)

                                   Through :- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA

                           v/s
Mohit Singh Langeh S/o Lt. Babishan Singh                              .....Respondent(s)
R/o Chackshama A/p Barnai, Tehsil Jammu
North, Jammu

                                   Through :-


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

                                 ORDER (ORAL)

1. Impugned in this petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India by

the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and its functionary, is an order

dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu

Bench, Jammu ["the Tribunal"] in OA No. 61/723/2025, titled "Mohit

Singh Langeh Vs. Union Territory of J&K and another", whereby the

Tribunal has disposed of the OA at the admission stage, without entering into

the merits of the case by providing that the petitioners herein shall release the

unpaid salary/arrears of salary in favour of the respondent, provided he was

continuously working on the post to which he was appointed.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on

record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in

the direction issued by the Tribunal. If the respondent has worked on the post to

2026:JKLHC-JMU:173-DB

which he was appointed by the petitioners, he becomes entitled to the salary for

the period he has worked.

3. It is contended by Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned GA that the appointment of the

respondent was subject to verification of his qualification of matriculation, which

qualification, upon verification, was found not genuine. If that be the situation,

nothing prevents the petitioners to initiate appropriate action in this regard.

Suffice it to say that the respondent has worked on the post to which he was

appointed by the petitioners, he would definitely be entitled to salary. This is what

has been held by the Tribunal.

4. For all these reasons, we find no merit in the petition and the same is,

accordingly, dismissed.

                             (Sanjay Parihar)                 (Sanjeev Kumar)
                                 Judge                              Judge

JAMMU
03.02.2026
Shafqat

                     Whether this order is reportable: Yes/No

                      Whether this order is speaking: Yes/No