[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Anwar Ul Haq on 19 February, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2026:JKLHC-JMU:452-DB
41
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Uploaded on 20.02.2026
CJ Court
Case : LPA No. 24/2026 in
(SWP No. 404/2016
CM No. 794 & 795/2026
Cav No. 2738/2025
Union of India and ors. ..... Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Sr. Advocate ( DSGI) with
Mr. Eishaan Ddhichi, CGSC
vs
Anwar Ul Haq ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Navyug Sethi, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
19.02.2026
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 43 days in filing the
appeal against the judgment dated 17.07.2025 passed by the writ court.
2. Notice. Mr. Navyug Sethi, Advocate, who is on caveat, waives notice on
behalf of respondent. The Caveat stands discharged. He submits that he has
no objection in case delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. For the reasons set out in the application, which is duly supported by an
affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently, the delay of 43 days in filing
the appeal is condoned.
4. Application stands disposed of.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:452-DB
5. Main Appeal is taken on board.
1. The present intra-court appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
17.07.2025 passed by the learned Writ Court in SWP No. 404/2016, whereby
the order dated 26.03.2012, removing the respondent from service, came to
be quashed and the appellants were directed to reinstate the respondent
forthwith with all consequential benefits. Liberty, however, was granted in
favour of the appellants to initiate departmental proceedings against the
respondent, if permissible under law.
2. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI appearing for the appellants submitted that
the learned writ court has erred in allowing the writ petition solely on the
ground of parity as the case of respondent was distinct vis-a-vis
Mehrajuddin, as the latter was terminated from service solely on account of
conviction, whereas the respondent herein was removed from service
pursuant to a duly conducted departmental enquiry.
3. Faced with the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the respondent fairly
submitted that the impugned judgment be set aside and the matter be remitted
to the learned Writ Court for fresh consideration on merits. He further
submitted that the respondent may be permitted to raise all available pleas
before the learned Writ Court in accordance with law. However, considering
the long pendency of the writ petition, it was requested that the learned Writ
Court be requested to decide the matter expeditiously.
4. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned
judgment dated 17.07.2025 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned
Writ Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The parties shall be
2026:JKLHC-JMU:452-DB
at liberty to raise all contentions available to them before the learned Writ
Court. Given that the writ petition pertains to the year 2016, the learned Writ
Court is requested to consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as
possible.
5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU:
19.02.2026
Karam Chand Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No
