[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ut Of J & K Through vs Sushma Devi on 27 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:46-DB
Sr. No. 22
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Pronounced on : 27.01.2026
Uploaded on : 28.01.2026
WP (C) No. 9/2026
CAV No. 2353/2025
1. UT of J & K through .....Petitioner(s)
Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Health & Education Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar-180001.
2. Director Family Welfare,
MCH & Immunization, J & K.
Through :- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with
Ms. Saliqua Sheikh, Advocate
v/s
Sushma Devi, .....Respondent(s)
W/o Sh. Ram Gopal Sharma,
R/o Nanak Nagar, H. No. 221/7, Street 9, Jammu.
Through :- Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
2 7 . 0 1. 2 0 2 6
1. With the appearance of learned counsel for the caveator, caveat
stands discharged.
1. Impugned in this petition, filed by the petitioners under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, is an order and judgment dated
09.06.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu
Bench, Jammu ["the Tribunal"] in TA No. 9149/2020 titled
"Sushma Devi Vs. State of J & K & Ors.", whereby the Tribunal
has allowed the petition filed by the respondent and directed the
2026:JKLHC-JMU:46-DB
petitioners herein to treat the respondent on a par with Respondent
No. 12/Vijay Lakshmi in the TA and grant her the benefit of pay
scale of 2000-3400 revised 6700-10700 from the date of her
appointment to 31.04.2002 and pay scale of 7450-11500 from
01.05.2002 onwards.
2. Briefly stating, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that
pursuant to advertisement notification bearing No. 03 of 1992 dated
03.07.1992 issued by J & K State Subordinate Services Recruitment
Board, Srinagar, the respondent along with few others came to be
selected and appointed as Sister Tutor in the Department of Health
in the year 1993. While the respondent along with one Vijay
Lakshmi were appointed in the then pay scale of 2000-3200 (un-
revised), 6500-10500 (revised) and Respondent No. 10 & 11 in the
TA were given the higher pay scale of 2000-3400 (un-revised)
6700-10700 (revised), thereby creating a disparity in the same class
i.e. class of Sister Tutor.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent along with Vijay Lakshmi filed
SWP 1571/2000 before this Court, which was disposed of vide
order dated 26.08.2002 with a direction to the petitioners to place
the respondent and Vijay Lakshmi in the pay scale of 2000-3400
(un-revised) 6700-10700 (revised), as was given to Respondent No.
10 & 11 in the TA.
4. The aforesaid direction passed in favour of the respondent and
Vijay Lakshmi was not implemented by the petitioners, which
constrained Vijay Lakshmi to file contempt petition before this
2026:JKLHC-JMU:46-DB
Court. Unfortunately, for the reasons best known to the respondent,
no contempt petition was filed on her behalf. Under the pains of
committing the contempt of the Court, the petitioners implemented
the order (supra) only qua Vijay Lakshmi and granted her the pay
scale of 2000-3400 (un-revised) 6700-10700 (revised) on the
analogy of Respondent No. 10 & 11 in the TA. However, no such
order was passed in favour of the respondent.
5. Ordinarily, the respondent ought to have filed contempt petition but
the same was not done and a fresh writ petition was filed in the year
2010 which later came to be transferred to the Tribunal and
registered as TA No. 9149/2020. The respondent claimed the
similar relief which already stood granted to her in terms of order
dated 26.08.2002 passed in SWP No. 1571/2000.
6. The petition (supra) was contested by the petitioners, who in their
reply took a stand that matter with regard to the grant of pay scale
claimed by the respondent on parity of Respondent No. 10 & 11 in
the TA was taken up with the Department of Law but the same
could not be granted due to disagreement expressed by the Law
Department.
7. Having considered the rival contentions and the material available
on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no good
and justifiable reasons to treat the respondent differently from Vijay
Lakshmi and Respondent No. 10 & 11 in the TA and, therefore,
allowed the TA No. 9149/2020 with the direction, which we have
referred to hereinabove.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:46-DB
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the material available on record, we are of the
considered opinion that the case of patent discrimination between
the respondent, Vijay Lakshmi and Respondent No. 10 & 11 in the
TA has been made out. Indisputably, the respondent, Vijay Lakshmi
and two others were appointed as Sister Tutor in the year 1993. The
respondent and Vijay Lakshmi were appointed in the then pay scale
of 2000-3200 (un-revised), whereas the Respondents 10 & 11 in the
TA, were given the higher pay scale of 2000-3400 (un-revised). The
respondent along with Vijay Lakshmi, who were discriminated in
the matter of grant of pay scale, were before this Court by way of
SWP No. 1571/2000. The writ petition was allowed and a direction
was issued to the petitioners to provide the same pay scale to the
respondent and Vijay Lakshmi as was provided to Respondent No.
10 & 11 in the TA.
9. It is strange that the judgment passed by this Court was
implemented only qua Vijay Lakshmi and not in respect of the
respondent and this was probably for the reason that Vijay Lakshmi
had filed a contempt petition seeking compliance of judgment
passed in SWP No. 1571/2000.
10. Ordinarily and as is expected from a model employer, a concluded
judgment passed by this Court, unless it is assailed before the
higher forum and is modified, is required to be implemented, qua
all the beneficiaries of the judgment. It is very strange that the
judgment (supra) is complied only in respect of the person, who had
2026:JKLHC-JMU:46-DB
filed the contempt petition, and left those, who had chosen not to
file contempt petition.
11. The controversy ought to have ended in the first round, had the
government acted in all its fairness and complied with the judgment
passed by the Court. This, however, did not happen, which
constrained the respondent to file another writ petition, which has
now been disposed of by the Tribunal in terms of the judgment
impugned and the Tribunal has found out a clear case of disparity in
which the respondent alone has been discriminated viz-a-viz. the
counterparts who were appointed along with her and had issued
direction to bring the respondent on a par with Vijay Lakshmi as
well as Respondent No. 10 & 11 in the TA.
12. We find no reason or justification to interfere with the order
impugned passed by the Tribunal. For the foregoing reason, we find
no merit in this petition and the same, is accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
27.01.2026
Manan
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
