[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ved Rattan Sharma vs State Of J&K on 5 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
2020:JKLHC-JMU:3421
Serial No. 13
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Pronounced on : 05.02.2026.
Uploaded on : 06.02.2026.
WP(C) No. 1841/2019
Ved Rattan Sharma .......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahil Raja, Advocate
Vs
State of J&K
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA for R-1 & 2
Mr. B.S. Bali, Advocate for R-3
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
(05.02.2026)
01. Through the medium of the present petition, the
petitioner has challenged order No. DULBJ/2017/3038-
39 dated 05.06.2017 issued by the respondent No. 2-
Director, Urban Local Bodies, Jammu whereby promotion
of respondent No. 3-Hans Raj as Senior Assistant has
been regularized retrospectively from the date the said
respondent was placed as in charge Senior Assistant.
02. The petitioner has sought an alternative prayer in the
nature of a direction upon the respondents to promote
him as Senior Assistant retrospectively from the date
2020:JKLHC-JMU:3421
respondent No. 3 was promoted with all consequential
benefits.
03. As per the case of the petitioner, he was appointed as an
orderly in the office of the respondent No. 2-Director,
Urban Local Bodies, Jammu, in the month of September,
1981 whereafter he was promoted as Junior Assistant in
terms of the order No. 110-DLBJ of 95 dated
28.04.1995. Regarding respondent No. 3-Hans Raj, it
has been pleaded that he was appointed as orderly much
after the appointment of the petitioner and he came to be
promoted as Junior Assistant along with the petitioner in
terms of an order dated 28.04.1995 (supra) but the
petitioner was figuring senior to respondent No. 3-Hans
Raj in the said promotion order.
04. It has been further pleaded that the respondent No. 3
was given the charge of the post of Senior Assistant in
terms of the order No. DULBJ/2014/4703 dated
14.07.2014 in his own pay grade by ignoring the
seniority of the petitioner.
05. According to the petitioner, he agitated the matter before
the respondent No. 2 and submitted his representation
2020:JKLHC-JMU:3421
but he was assured that his case for placement as in
charge Senior Assistant and promotion would be
processed, however, no action was taken by the
respondent No. 2 and instead the impugned order dated
05.06.2017 came to be issued by the respondent No. 2
whereby in charge promotion given to the respondent No.
3 was regularized retrospectively from the date he was
given the charge of Senior Assistant.
06. It has been submitted that the petitioner again filed a
series of representations before various authorities
agitating his claim but without any response from the
authorities. Hence the present writ petition.
07. The official respondents have contested the writ petition
by filing their reply. In their reply, the official respondents
while admitting that petitioner was senior to the
respondent No. 3-Hans Raj have taken a stand that
seniority cannot be only factor for according promotion to
an employee. It has been contended that promotion can
be made on the basis of merit, suitability and seniority in
terms of the rules, as such, the petitioner cannot claim to
be promoted as a matter of right.
2020:JKLHC-JMU:3421
08. It has been further contended that the petitioner has not
agitated his claim with the reasonable dispatch inasmuch
as he has slept over the matter and approached this
Court after a considerable delay thereby accusing the
impugned action of the respondents.
09. The respondent No. 3 has also contested the writ petition
by filing his reply in which he has supported the stand
taken by the official respondents.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
record of the case.
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was figuring senior
to respondent No. 3-Hans Raj at the time when both of
them were granted promotion to the post of Junior
Assistant in terms of order dated 28.04.1995 (supra).
The stand taken by the respondents is that only on the
basis of the seniority, the petitioner cannot claim
promotion from the date the respondent No. 3-Hans Raj
was promoted as Senior Assistant.
12. According to the respondents merit and suitability of
eligible employees are also to be taken into account,
however, respondents have not even averred that they
2020:JKLHC-JMU:3421
had considered the comparative merit of the petitioner
and respondent No. 3 while ignoring the petitioner and
preferring the respondent No. 3 over him for next
promotion.
13. While the respondents may be correct in contending that
seniority is only one of the factors for promotion and that
merit and suitability are also required to be considered,
they have not even alleged that the petitioner was found
unsuitable or less meritorious than respondent No. 3.
There is nothing on record to show why respondent No. 3
was preferred over the petitioner while placing him as In-
charge Senior Assistant in his pay grade or while
regularizing the said promotion vide the impugned order.
14. In the absence of such pleadings or record that would go
on to show that the petitioner was less meritorious than
the respondent No. 3, the impugned action of the official
respondents is vitiated.
15. The other ground that has been urged by the
respondents is that delay and laches on the part of the
petitioner in approaching this Court. In this regard, it is
to be noted that in the year 2014, the official respondents
2020:JKLHC-JMU:3421
No. 1 and 2 had placed the respondent No. 3-Hans Raj as
Senior Assistant on in charge basis and no substantive
promotion had been given to him. Even though, the
petitioner is stated to have made a representations
against the said action of the official respondents yet the
cause of action in favour of the petitioner actually arose
when the said in charge promotion of respondent No. 3
was regularized by the official respondents in terms of the
order dated 05.06.2017 whereafter the petitioner has
made a series of representations against the said action
of the official respondents before various authorities.
16. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner in
the month of May, 2019 and, as such, by no stretch of
imagination the same can be termed as delayed.
17. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has now superannuated from service in the
year 2021 and in the year 2022 respondent No. 3 was
given another promotion to the post of Head Assistant
whereafter he also superannuated in the year 2023.
2020:JKLHC-JMU:3421
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner would be satisfied if he is granted notional
promotion to the post of Senior Assistant from the date
on which respondent No. 3-Hans Raj, was promoted to
the said post, so that the petitioner's pensionary benefits
may be fixed accordingly.
19. Having held that the impugned action of the official
respondents, in overlooking the claim of the petitioner
and promoting respondent No. 3 as Senior Assistant, is
not sustainable in law, and in view of the developments
that have taken place after the filing of the present writ
petition, as narrated hereinabove, this Court, instead of
quashing the impugned Order No. DULBJ/2017/3038-
39 dated 05.06.2017, directs as under:
i. The petitioner shall be given promotion to the
post of Senior Assistant on notional basis from
the date on which the respondent No. 3 was
substantively promoted to the post of Senior
Assistant w.e.f 14.07.2014.
ii. After granting annual increments on notional
basis, the official respondents shall recommend
the re-fixation of pension in favour of the
petitioner to the competent authority in
accordance with the rules.
2020:JKLHC-JMU:3421
20. The entire exercise shall be conducted by the official
respondents within a period of two months from today.
21. Disposed of.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
05.02.2026
SUNIL
Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable ? : Yes/No
