Jammu, dec 14: In LPASW No. 113/2012 c/w CCP(D) No. 4/2020 titled Pyare Lal Bhat and others Vs State of J&K and others , after hearing a DB comprising of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGEHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE, ordered as under:-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE:- 01. Thematic reading between the lines of this case is that the appellants fought for justice, got justice and then lost justice to find themselves back to square one to be in situation no better than of year 1986when they, joined by similarly aggrieved others, had commenced an original litigation in this court with a writ petition aimed and meant only to salvage their respective seniority as April 1979 direct recruit Sub Inspectors of J&K Police vis-à-vis pre-1978 Assistant Sub Inspectors (ASIs) granted retrospective promotion in 1985 w.e.f April 1978 as Sub Inspectors (SIs).
02. Present letters patent appeal (in short “LPA”) No. 113/2012 is by fourteen (14) appellants who, along with some others, commonly figured2 LPASW No. 113/2012c/w CCP(D) No. 4/2020in long array of respondents named in two writ petitions SWP No.1620/2008 & SWP No. 3065/2010.
03. Before proceeding further, this Court would like to set out the respective dates of retirement of the appellants to highlight the end objective which adjudication of this LPA No. 113/2012 is going to serve to the appellants all of whom are now retired long back but having shouldered the burden of this litigation without abandoning their cause and yearning for the justice done to their cause.
S. No. Appellant Name Date of Retirement
1. Pyare Lal Bhat 04/2012
2. Varinder Kumar 01/2014
3. Sheikh Abdul Rashid 05/2012
4. Fareed Ahmed Khan 03/2014
5. Mohd. Yousaf Mir 03/2013
6. Farooq Ahmed Kirmani 04/2013
7. Kailash Chander 12/2011
8. Abdul Rashid Lone 11/2013
9 Saif-ud-Din Shah 08/2013
10. Sham Sundar Sharma 05/2010
11. Ghulam Haider Badhana 09/2013
12. Ghulam Hassan Shah 01/2014
13. Mir Mohd. Chowdhary 10/2016
14. Mohd. Shafi Mir 01/2013
113. We are conscious of the fact that the appellants in particular, andthe writ petitioners in SWP No. 1208/1986 & SWP No. 3586/1997 ingeneral, all had accepted the mandate and effect of Govt. Order No. Home597(P) of 2008 dated 04/09/2008 read with Govt. Order No. Home508(P) of 2010 dated 29/04/2010 and, therefore, they were contended tobear the restorative effect granted in terms of Govt. Order No. Home-597(P)of 2008 dated 04/09/2008 related to revision of their seniority with acorresponding promotion accordingly from the rank of Sub-Inspectoronwards.
114. We, accordingly, modify the Single Bench judgment to this effect by only holding the appellants, fourteen (14) in number now, to be entitled to the service benefits and effect in its entirety from the position vested and bestowed upon them in terms of Govt. Order No. Home-597(P) of 2008 dated 04/09/2008 read with Govt. Order No. Home-508(P) of 2010 dated 29/04/2010 till their respective date of retirement and post-retirement corresponding retiral benefits to be accordingly extended.
115. However, the service benefits and effects to be accorded to the appellants by reference to Govt. Order No. Home-597(P) of 2008 dated 04/09/2008 shall be notional in terms of pecuniary benefits till their respective superannuation which otherwise were to coincide with their corresponding promotion, but in terms of the retiral benefits the appellants shall be entitled to actual benefits by their revised service status.
116. We make it clear to the respondents No. 1 to 4 that the benefits, notional as well as actual, to be granted in favour of the appellants by reference to Govt. Order No. Home-597(P) of 2008 dated 04/09/2008 as hereby directed, shall be if not better but surely in equivalence with likes of Abdul Gaffar Malik with respect to whom Govt. Order No. Home-305(P) of 2007 dated 04/07/2007 was passed and others who admittedly was/were junior to the appellants in the cadre of Sub Inspector but availed progression in service ahead of the appellants.
In granting aforesaid relief in favour of the fourteen (14) appellants, we are taking due note of the fact that good number of their juniors who figured as respondents in the aforesaid two writ petitions i.e. SWP No. 1208/1986 & SWP No. 3586/1997 came to be accorded service status and benefits by reckoning their position as seniors to the appellants. Abdul Gaffar Malik, ASI is one of the examples of said service benefit being accorded to him ahead of the appellants herein despite being junior to them.
117. The relief hereby granted is to be restricted exclusively for the fourteen (14) appellants herein and not to their co-petitioners who figured in SWP No. 1208/1986 & SWP No. 3586/1997 who did not choose to come forward with challenge to the learned Single Bench judgment dated 22/12/2011 in SWP No. 1620/2008 & SWP No. 3065/2010.
118. Compliance to be done to the directions hereby being given in favour of the appellants within a period of sixty days from the date of passing of this judgment failing which the respondents No. 1 to 4 shall render themselves answerable and accountable.
119. Disposed of accordingly.
120. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, contempt proceedings in CCP(D) No. 4/2020 are also dropped.
|