Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Sudesh Kumar Sharma vs Director General Of Police on 18 November, 2025
1 TA 6711 of 2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH
No. TA 6711 of 2021
Present: Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. Ram Mohan Johri, Member (A) Sudesh Kumar Sharma aged 47 years S/o Late Sh. Jagan Nath Sharma R/o Thourni, P/o Pouni, Tehsil & District Reasi.
......Applicant VERSUS
1. State of Jammu & Kashmir Through Chief Secretary J&K Government, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar
2. Commissioner / Secretary to Government Prisons Department Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
3. Director General of Police Prisons Department, J&K, Srinagar.
4. Lekh Raj-II, Head Warder, Office of District Jail Jammu
5. Om Prakash-II, Head Warder, Office of District Jail, Jammu
6. Mohd Ashraf Wani, Head Warder, Office of District Jail Kupwara.
7. Ghulam Qadir Sheikh, Head Warder, Office of District Jail Anantnag.
8. Abdul Ahad Magrey, Head Warder, Office of District Jail Udhampur.
9. Yog Raj, Head Warder, Office of District Jail, Kathua.
10. Sehdev Singh, Head Warder, Office of District Jail, Kathua.
11. Shabir Ahmed Gujar, Head Warder, Office of District Jail Rajouri.
12. Maqbool Hussain, Head Warder, Office of District Jail Kathua For the applicant : Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, counsel For the respondents : Mr. Hunar Gupta, ld DAG Heard on : 3.4.2025 Pronounced on : 18.11.2025 2 TA 6711 of 2021 O R D E R Per Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, J.M. The applicant is aggrieved of the orders dated 24.5.2012 and 25.6.2012 whereby the private respondents have been promoted to the post of Head Warder though the applicant is senior to them as per the seniority list of Selection Grade Warders as on 1.1.2011. The applicant moved the Hon'ble High Court in SWP No. 1818 of 2012. After the promulgation of the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019 and the formation of UT of J&K, the case was made over to this Tribunal where it was re-numbered as TA 6711 of 2021. The applicant has prayed for the following relief :
(i) Allow this writ petition of the petitioner.
(ii) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order 367 of 2012 dated 24.5.2012 and order No. 432 dated 25.6.2012 issued by the respondent No. 3 whereby the private respondents have been promoted as Head Warder over the above the petitioner, despite being senior to these private respondents.
(iii) Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent authorities from fixing the seniority list of the Head warders on the basis of the promotion orders made vide impugned orders dated 24.5.2012 and 25.6.2012.
(iv) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent No.3 to promote the petitioner as Head Warder over and above the private respondents at the roaster point as available to him under rules
(v) Any other writ, command, direction or order as the facts of this case demand and this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in favour of the petitioner.
3 TA 6711 of 2021
2. The fact of the case is that -
a) The applicant was appointed as Warder in the Prisons department of the State of J&K on 15.11.1984. He was promoted to the post of Selection Grade Warder in the Prisons Department on 14.12.1998. Vide Order 593 of 2009 dated 2.9.2009 the applicant was also granted In-situ Promotion w.e.f. 1.1.2008 in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000.
b) It is submitted by the applicant that all along his present service tenure he remained higher up in the Senior list of Selection Grade Warders as on 1.1.2011 than the private respondents, more particularly in the recent tentative Seniority List of Selection Grade Warders of 2011, the name of the applicant figured at S.No. 17 as against the private respondents who figured at S.No 18,21,22,23,24,25,26,27and 28, which fact is evident enough to substantiate the seniority of the petitioner over the private respondents. It is also relevant to submit that as per the tentative seniority list(s) corresponding to year 2009, 2008 and 2007, the name of the applicant always figured over and above the names of the private respondents.
c) Respondent No.3 vide impugned order No. 367 of 2012 dated 24.5.2012 promoted the private respondent No. 4, 5 & 6 as Warder 4 TA 6711 of 2021 on roaster point No. 72(OM), 73(OM), 74 (OM) over and above the applicant who also belongs to the open merit category and is senior to these private respondents as per the tentative seniority list of 2011. The respondent No.3 subsequently issued another order No.432 of 2012 dated 25.6.2012, whereby the private respondent No.(s) 7 to 12 were promoted as Head Warder, again by superseding the name of the applicant who in any way is higher up in seniority than the private respondents.
d) Being aggrieved of the same, the applicant made representation dated 4.6.2012 before respondent No.3 and many times orally thereafter, but the respondent No. 3 neither afforded any opportunity of being heard to the applicant nor did he reply.
e) The applicant further submits that as per the Reservation Rules, 2005 amended vide SRO 144 dated 28.5.2008, the 100 points roaster provided under Rule 10 of the Reservation Rules prescribes the roaster points, which are to be utilized by the respondent authorities while making any promotion of employees falling under respective categories, wherein each employee gets promoted on the basis of a roaster point allocated to him as per his respective category as well as position in seniority. For ready 5 TA 6711 of 2021 reference of this Hon'ble Court, the relevant portion thereof is reproduced as under:
"100 points roaster-
67 Unreserved 68 Unreserved 69 Unreserved 70 Schedule Tribe 71 Unreserved 72 Unreserved 73 Unreserved 74 Unreserved........"
Thus, the applicant who figures at S.No. 17 in the tentative seniority list of 2011 is entitled for promotion to the post of Warder on the basis of his roaster point at S.No. 73 over above the private respondents who are lower in the seniority list than him, but the respondent No.3 has allocated the roaster point S.No. 73 to private respondents who are junior in seniority than the applicant.
Hence the present application.
3. The respondents have filed their counter stating that the case of the applicant was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 22.3.2012 for the promotion of Head Warder but was found unfit and dropped alongwith candidate 6 TA 6711 of 2021 figuring at Serial No. 16 in the seniority list, in view of the punishment awarded to the applicant and the candidate figuring at Serial No. 16. The applicant stood punished by way of imposing fine of Rs. 50/- during the year 2009 vide Order No. DJK/1585 dated 5.6.2009 passed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Kathua for his negligence towards duties. It is submitted that on 1.6.2009 an Undertrial brought for admission in District Jail, Kathua managed to smuggle poppy powder inside and cross the R.P. Gate while the applicant was on duty at R.P. Gate. The conduct of the applicant in discharging his duties was viewed seriously and accordingly the aforesaid punishment was imposed. The applicant has not challenged the said punishment till date. Accordingly, the petitioner was not found fit and eligible for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the negligence shown by him while performing the said duties. The private respondents including other officials have been promoted as Head Warder as per seniority, work and conduct and in accordance with the reservation rules under SRO-144 of 2008 dated 28.5.2008. It is accordingly submitted that there is no infringement of any fundamental, legal or statutory right of the 7 TA 6711 of 2021 petitioners to file the present writ petition and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials available on record.
5. After hearing the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides and going through the records it transpires that the impugned orders dated 24.5.2012 and 25.6.2012 aggrieved the applicant by denying his fundamental right of getting promoted to the higher post in pay scale over and above his junior counterparts. The applicant who is eligible in all respects was entitled to be promoted as Head Warder over and above the private respondents, on the basis of the roaster point available for him under the Rule 10 of the reservation rules. Moreover, the applicant was not given any opportunity of being heard before issuing the impugned orders.
On the other hand, the respondents have submitted that the case of the applicant was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 22.3.2012 for the promotion of Head Warder but was found unfit and dropped alongwith candidate figuring at Serial No. 16 in the seniority list, in view of the punishment awarded to the applicant and the 8 TA 6711 of 2021 candidate figuring at Serial No. 16. The applicant stood punished by way of imposing fine of Rs. 50/- during the year 2009 vide Order No. DJK/1585 dated 5.6.2009 passed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Kathua for his negligence towards duties. It is submitted that on 1.6.2009 an Undertrial brought for admission in District Jail, Kathua managed to smuggle poppy powder inside and cross the R.P. Gate while the applicant was on duty at R.P. Gate. The conduct of the applicant in discharging his duties was viewed seriously and accordingly the aforesaid punishment was imposed. The applicant has not challenged the said punishment till date. Accordingly, the petitioner was not found fit and eligible for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the negligence shown by him while performing the said duties. It is also submitted by the respondents that the private respondents including other officials have been promoted as Head Warder as per seniority, work and conduct and in accordance with the reservation rules under SRO-144 of 2008 dated 28.5.2008.
6. In view of the above discussions, the TA is allowed. The impugned order 367 of 2012 dated 24.5.2012 and order No. 432 dated 25.6.2012 issued by the respondent No. 3 whereby the private respondents have been promoted as Head Warder over the 9 TA 6711 of 2021 above the applicant, despite being senior to these private respondents are hereby quashed and set aside. Further, the respondent No.3 is directed to promote the applicant as Head Warder over and above the private respondents at the roaster point as available to him under rules. The entire exercise be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Indrani/PPS