[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir & ... vs Mohammad Saliya Bhat & Ors on 9 February, 2026
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
WP (C) No. 199/2026.
CM No. 483/2026
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Others.
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr Abdul Rashid Malik, Senior AAG with
Mr. Younis Ahad, Assisting Counsel.
V/s
Mohammad Saliya Bhat & Ors.
... Respondents
CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms Justice Sindhu Sharma, Judge
Hon'ble Mr Justice Shahzad Azeem, Judge
(ORDER)
01. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging
the interim orders dated August 12, 2025 and August 27, 2025, respectively
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench [the
Tribunal] in O.A. No. 799/2025 and M.A. No. 1246/2025, titled
"Mohammad Saliya Bhat and Ors. Vs Union Territory of J&K and
02. To be specific, the Tribunal vide impugned orders and as a
interim measure has stayed the operation of order dated June 20th, 2025,
whereby the temporary additional charge of District Program Managers
(DPMs) assigned to the respondents came to be revoked and further directed
the petitioners to allow the respondents to continue on the post of District
Program Managers and also sought compliance thereof.
03. The grievance of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents
came to be engaged on a contractual basis as Block Program Managers
(BPM) initially for a period of one year, terminable on one month's notice
from either side and further extension was kept subject to the requirement of
the department and the performance of the incumbents. Therefore, such
contractual engagement unequivocally stipulated that engagement did not
confer any right to the promotion, seniority or regularization.
04. However, in order to cater the requirement of the Department,
temporarily the respondents were assigned the additional charge of District
Programme Manager (DPMs). The said arrangement was purely made on a
need basis, and was co-terminus with the administrative requirement.
05. It is stated that on the basis of the subsequent rationalization of
manpower utilization, the additional charge assigned to the respondents was
revoked. Thus, the respondents were neither demoted nor any of their service
conditions have been altered. Therefore, in the wake of the aforesaid facts
and in view of the settled legal position, it has become difficult for the
Department to implement the direction of the Tribunal to continue the
respondents, as DPMs, hence the petition.
06. Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, learned Senior AAG appearing for
the petitioners, after arguing for some time, fairly conceded to the fact that
the order under challenge is passed by way of interim measure and also
submitted that the Department has already filed Objections /application for
vacation of stay before the Tribunal and, therefore, submits that at this stage
he would be satisfied in case the Tribunal is directed to consider the matter
taking into consideration the Objections and application so filed by the
petitioners. The statement made by Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, learned Senior
AAG appearing for the petitioners, is taken on record.
07. Admittedly, the orders under challenge have been passed by the
Tribunal by way of an interim measure, however, the difficulty in
implementing the same, as projected by the learned Senior AAG, needs due
consideration, particularly looking into the nature and source of the initial
appointment of the respondents.
08. Keeping in view the stage of the O.A pending before the
Tribunal and in view of the submissions made at Bar, instant Writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to consider and decide the
aforesaid O.A, expeditiously. Furthermore, application for vacation of stay is
stated to be filed by the petitioners, therefore, keeping in view the urgency
projected by the petitioners, till the application for vacation of stay filed by
the petitioners is considered and decided by the Tribunal, the operation of the
impugned order dated August 27, 2025 shall remain stayed.
09. Disposed of along with connected CM.
(Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge
SRINAGAR
9th of February, 2026
"Showkat Khan"
