[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Of India Through vs Romesh Chander (Mate Electrician) on 29 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Sr. No.2026:JKLHC-JMU:66-DB
09
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
LPASW No. 54/2016
Pronounced on : 29.01.2026
Uploaded on : 30.01.2026
1. Union of India through .....Appellant(s)
Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. Engineer-in-Chief's Branch,
Integrated HQ of MOD (Army),
Kashmir House, New Delhi-11.
3. HQ Chief Engineer, Northern Command,
PIN 914698, C/o 56-APO.
4. HQ Commander Works Engineer, Udhampur,
PIN 900386, C/o 56-APO.
5. Garrison Engineer (Utilities), Udhampur,
PIN 900386, C/o 56-APO.
Through :- None
v/s
Romesh Chander (Mate Electrician), .....Respondent(s)
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal,
R/o Malhar, Tehsil & District Udhampur ( J & K ).
Through :- Mr. K S Johal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Karman S Johal, Advocate
Mr. Devansh Singh Thakur, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
29.01.2026
1. This, intra court appeal, by the Union of India, is directed against
the order and judgment dated 16.10.2014 ["the impugned order"],
passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court ["the Writ
Court"] in SWP No. 2476/2013 c/w SWP No. 1200/2013, whereby
the Writ Court has disposed of both the petitions by holding that
although the impugned order repatriating the respondent to his
parent posting at Leh was not in consonance with law, yet held the
2026:JKLHC-JMU:66-DB
respondent entitled to the salary for the period w.e.f. 24.05.2013 i.e.
the date on which the order of status-quo was passed by the Writ
Court till the order impugned i.e. 16.10.2014 was passed.
2. The appellants are aggrieved and have assailed the impugned order,
primarily on the ground that, the Writ Court has not appreciated that
the status-quo order was passed on 24.05.2013, whereas the
appellants had relieved the respondent on 22.05.2013. It is
contended that the Writ Court also failed to appreciate that, for the
period the respondent has been held entitled to salary, he has not
performed his duties anywhere, either in Udhampur or in Leh.
3. Per contra, Mr. K S Johal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
respondent, would argue that it was a clear case set up by the
respondent in his petition that the relieving order purportedly issued
on 22.05.2013 by the appellants was a back dated order which was
actually passed after 24.05.2013 i.e. after the order of status-quo.
He would, therefore, submit that the order of relieving dated
22.05.2013 was manipulated to overcome the order of status-quo
and, therefore, in such circumstances, the respondent should be
deemed to have been working at Udhampur and entitled to his
salary.
4. Having heard learned Senior counsel for the respondent at
length and perused the material available on record, we are of
the considered opinion that the crucial issue, as to whether the
order dated 22.05.2013, whereby the respondent has been stated to
be relieved by the appellants, is a back dated order issued after
24.05.2013, as alleged by the respondent in the petition and denied
2026:JKLHC-JMU:66-DB
by the appellants, has not been considered and decided by the Writ
Court.
5. The Writ Court has, though, come to a right conclusion that the
impugned order of transfer/repatriation from Udhampur office of
the appellants to Leh was perfectly legal and did not call for
interference, however, the Writ Court ought not to have directed the
appellants to release the salary of the respondent for the period
w.e.f. 24.05.2013 i.e. from the date of status-quo order till the
disposal of the writ petitions i.e. 16.10.2014, without first recording
a specific finding as to whether on the date of grant of status-quo
order i.e. 24.05.2013, the respondent was posted in Udhampur
office and had not been relieved.
6. As observed above, the Writ Court has not adverted to the afore-
said issue and has simply directed the appellants to release the
salary of the respondent for the intervening period. The Writ Court
had not even held the order of relieving date i.e. 22.05.2013, which
was challenged by the respondent in the subsequent writ petition, as
bad in the eye of law, nor has it quashed the same. In the absence of
aforesaid, it was not legally permissible to hold the respondent
entitled to salary for the period he had not discharged his duties
anywhere.
7. Be that as it may, without rendering any opinion on the merits
of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the matter
needs to be remanded back to the Writ Court to consider the
aspect of entitlement of the respondent to salary for the period
w.e.f. 24.05.2013 when the order of status-quo was passed till
2026:JKLHC-JMU:66-DB
the disposal of the writ petitions i.e. 16.10.2014. The decision on
this aspect would definitely turn on the determination of fact as to
whether the respondent stood relieved on 22.05.2013 or was
relieved after 24.05.2013 by the appellants, by manipulating a back
dated relieving order.
8. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is disposed of and the
matter is remanded back to the Writ Court for deciding the afore-
said aspect of the matter. Rest of the judgment of the Writ Court is,
however, upheld.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
29.01.2026
Manan
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
