Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Parshotam Lal vs Director General Of Police on 13 November, 2025
:: 1 :: T.A. No. 61/3390/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (RESERVED)
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No.61/3390/2021
Order reserved on: 07th day of July, 2025
Pronounced on: - This the 13th day of November, 2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Parshotam Lal, age 52 years,
S/O Sh. Tulsi Ram,
R/O Village Dhamyal, Tehsil Hira Nagar,
District- Kathua.
....Applicant
(Through Advocate: Ms. Surinder Kour, Ld. Sr. Adv. Assisted by
Ms. Manpreet Kour)
VERSUS
1. State of Jammu & Kashmir through
Principal Secretary to Home Department,
Govt. of J&K, Govt. Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2. Director General of Police, Prison Department,
J&K, Jammu.
3. Additional Director General Prison, J&K, Jammu.
4. Superintendent Sub Jail Hira Nagar.
....Respondents
(Through Advocate: Mr. Rajesh Thapa, learned A.A.G.)
:: 2 :: T.A. No. 61/3390/2021
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 682/2016 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/3390/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court with following prayer:
"i/ to quash Government order No. 253 of 2016 dated 30.03.2016 issued by the respondent No. 2 communicated to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 Superintendent Sub Jail, Hira Nagar vide No. SJH/Estt/P-44/1586-87 dated 31.03.2016 by which the respondents have reverted back the petitioner to the post of Safaiwala, by issuance of writ of Certiorari;
ii/ to issue directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Warder on which the petitioner was duly promoted and to pay the salary to the petitioner on the post of Warder, by issuance of writ of mandamus;
iii/ to declare the Government order No. 253 of 2016 dated 30.03.2016 issued by the respondent No. 2 communicated to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 Superintendent Sub Jail, Hira Nagar vide No. SJH/Estt/P-44/1586-87 dated 31.03.2016 by which the respondents have reverted back the petitioner to the post of Safaiwala, as ultra virus, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and contrary to the provisions of law and rules and against the provisions of principles of natural justice, by issuance of writ of mandamus, AND Any other writ, order or directions as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents with cost."
:: 3 :: T.A. No. 61/3390/2021
3. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings are as follows:
a) That the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis on 04.06.1991. The respondents have not regularized the service of the petitioner, the petitioner along with Ganesh Dass filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Court being SWP No. 1306/1996 entitled Parshotam Lal and Anr. V/S State of J&K & others and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 09.02.1998 allowed the writ petition and held that the petitioners are entitled to regularization.
b) The respondents have issued an order No. 11 of 1998 dated 23.04.1998 by which the respondents incompliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court appointed the petitioner as Safaikaramchari and posted in District Jail Baramulla.
c) The petitioner remained posted at different places i.e. District Jail Baramulla, Kathua, Jammu and presently the petitioner is posted in Sub Jail, Hira Nagar and performing the duties equity efficiently and honestly to the entire satisfaction of his superiors.
d) That the respondents have issued Government order No. 106 of 2002 dated 30.09.2002 by which the petitioner was promoted and adjusted against the post of warder. It is specifically mentioned that on the basis of recommendation of District Superintendent Jail of Jammu and Kathua the :: 4 :: T.A. No. 61/3390/2021 following officials are adjusted against the post of Warder. This order was passed and the petitioner was posted in District Jail Kathua. Since 2002 the petitioner is working on the post of Warder on which the petitioner was duly promoted. This has been entered in the service book of the petitioner and the petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Warder i.e. 3050-4910. The petitioner has also undergone six months basic course of Jail Warder w.e.f. 03.07.2006 to 12.01.2007 in police Academy Udhampur and also secured 644 marks out of 1015 marks and this was entered in the service book of the petitioner.
e) The petitioner has also given the benefit of in SITU promotion in 2011 on the post of warder. The petitioner is working against the post of Warder and performing the duties quite efficiently which is clear from the record.
f) That to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the Director General Prison issued an order No. 253 of 2016 dated 30.03.2016 by which the Director General of Prison respondent No. 2 has reverted the petitioner back to the post of Safaikaramchari and this order was communicated to the petitioner by the Superintendent Jail of Hira Nagar vide No. SJH/Esst/P-44/1586-87 dated 31.03.2016.
Hence, this writ petition.
:: 5 :: T.A. No. 61/3390/2021
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a. That the petitioner was working as daily wager in District Jail, Kathua and as per record a committee was constituted for the regularization of daily wagers and the case of petitioner was rejected by the committee as the petitioner was found unfit due to stammering. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner alongwith one other daily wager namely Ganesh Dass who was also rejected by the Screening Committee on the same ground filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 1306/1996 before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K at Jammu. The Hon'ble Court vide judgment/order dated 09- 02-1998 has disposed of the writ petition with the direction that they were entitled for regularization and they would not be declared unfit merely on the basis of medical unfitness recorded(stammering). In compliance to the order/judgment dated 09-02-1998, both the persons including the petitioner herein were appointed as Safai- karmcharis vide Order No. 11 of 1998 dated 23- 04-1998.
b. That on the basis of recommendations of the Superintendent Jail, Kathua and keeping in view the academic qualification of petitioner, he was adjusted as Warder vide Order No. 106 of 2002 dated 30-09-2002.
:: 6 :: T.A. No. 61/3390/2021 c. That one Ganesh Das, Safaiwala filed SWP No. 586/2010 titled Ganesh Dass Vs State of J&K and others, seeking directions to the respondents to appoint/ regularize him as Warder w.e.f. 23-04-1998 i.e. the date he was appointed as Safaiwallas with all consequential benefits on the analogy of Parshotam Lal. The Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 02-05-2013 has disposed of SWP No. 586/2013 titled Ganesh Dass Vs State and ors with the following directions:
"In view of above, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to accord consideration to the case of the petitioner for his adjustment to the post of Warder on the same lines as has been done in case of Sh Parshotam Lal"
d. The claim of Ganesh Dass for his adjustment as Warder was considered by the Home Department with reference to the rules and was rejected vide Order No. Home-475 of 2013 dated 20-11-2013 on the ground produced as under:-
(i) In terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Jails (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985, the post of Warder in the pay scale of Rs. 410-775 (pre- revised) shall be filled up 100% by direct recruitment. As per these rules, the posts of Safaiwallas are in the scale of Rs. 345-460 (pre- revised) and have to be filled up by direct recruitment.
(ii) There is no provision in the Jammu and Kashmir Jails (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985 which provides for appointment of a Safaiwalla as Warder.
(iii) The change of cadre of any Government employee has been prohibited by the General Administrative Department vide Circular NO. 7-GAD of 2003 dated 12- 03-2003 and 25-GAD of 2003 dated 29-08-203.
(iv) As regards the case of Parshotam Lal (petitioner herein), he was adjusted as Warder, keeping in view his higher qualification. His case may not form the basis or precedence to extend an identical benefit to Ganesh Dass.
:: 7 :: T.A. No. 61/3390/2021 Whereas, aggrieved by the above Government Order, Ganesh Dass filed contempt petition No. 504/2013 titled Ganesh Dass Vs Suresh Kumar and others seeking benefit of conversion of the post on the analogy of Parshotam Lal. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 08-02-2016 passed in the Contempt Petition No. 504/2013 invited attention to para-4 of the original judgment dated 02-05- 2013 which reads as under:-
"Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations as has been made in the judgment dated 02-05-2013 in particular reference to the important opinion as recorded in para-5 of the judgment to the following effect:
..Principle of equitable estoppels would apply in the present case as when both the petitioner and Parshotam Lal were appointed as Safai Karamcharis and later on cadre of Parshotam Lal was changed on the basis of his having higher qualification then there is no justification to deny the same treatment to the petitioner unless it is shown that petitioner is not eligible and qualified to hold the post of Warder."
Whereas, it was also mentioned that the respondents shall undertake the exercise and pass appropriate orders thereon. They shall file compliance report by or before next date which is fixed on 22-03- 2016.
In light of the Hon'ble Court directions dated 08- 02- 2016, the mater was taken up with the Home Department by the answering respondent No. 2 vide communication No. Esstt/SWP/586/15582 dated 15-03- 2016 for further instructions in the matter.
:: 8 :: T.A. No. 61/3390/2021 The Home Department vide communication bearing No. Home/Jail/24/2013 dated 30-03-2016 has intimated that:
"In terms of Jammu and Kashmir Jails (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985, the post of Warder (a Non-Gazetted Post) shall be filed up 100% by direct recruitment. The Rules do not provide for change of cadre of a Class-IV employee as Warder or any other post. Moreover, the change of cadre has been prohibited by the General Administrative Department (GAD) vide Circular No. 7-GAD of 2003 dated 12-03-2003 and 25-GAD of 2003 dated 29-08-2003. The rules of the Prisons Department also do not provide for promotion of Class-IV employee against a direct recruitment post of Warder. The rule position is clearly indicative of the fact that the change of cadre of Parshotam Lal, Safaiwalla as Warder is ab-initio wrong, illegal and needs to be reviewed. He has been conferred upon an illegal benefit to which he was not entitled to as per the rules. Upon further consideration, it has been decided as under :-
(i) Revert Parshotam Lal (petitioner herein) to his original position of Safaiwalla as his adjustment as Warder is in violation of the Jammu and Kashmir Jails (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985 and GAD Circular NO. 7-GAD of 2003 dated 12-03-
2003 and 25-GAD of 2003 dated 29-08-2003.
Since the petitioner (Parshotam Lal) had been accorded an undue benefit to which he was not entitled in terms of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Jails (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules and other standing instructions of GAD (General Administrative Department), there was no option but to undo the wrong committed by the Prisons Department by reverting him to his original position. As a corollary to this, the claim of Ganesh :: 9 :: T.A. No. 61/3390/2021 Dass for conversion as Warder was rejected by the Home Department and order to this effect was issued by the answering respondent No. 2 vide order No. 253 of 2016 dated 30-03-2016."
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. The case, in nutshell, is that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis on 04.06.1991. The respondents have not regularized the service of the petitioner, the petitioner along with Ganesh Dass filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Court being SWP No. 1306/1996 entitled Parshotam Lal and Anr. V/S State of J&K & others and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 09.02.1998 allowed the writ petition and held that the petitioners are entitled to regularization. The respondents have issued an order No. 11 of 1998 dated 23.04.1998 by which the respondents incompliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court appointed the petitioner as Safaikaramchari and posted in District Jail Baramulla. The respondents have issued Government order No. 106 of 2002 dated 30.09.2002 by which the petitioner was promoted and adjusted against the post of warder. Since 2002 the petitioner is working on the post of Warder on which the petitioner was duly promoted. This has been entered in the service book of the petitioner and the petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Warder i.e. 3050-4910. The petitioner has also undergone six months basic course of Jail Warder w.e.f. 03.07.2006 to 12.01.2007 in police Academy Udhampur :: 10 :: T.A. No. 61/3390/2021 and also secured 644 marks out of 1015 marks and this was entered in the service book of the petitioner. The petitioner has also given the benefit of in SITU promotion in 2011 on the post of warder. The Director General Prison issued an order No. 253 of 2016 dated 30.03.2016 by which the Director General of Prison respondent No. 2 has reverted the petitioner back to the post of Safaikaramchari and this order was communicated to the petitioner by the Superintendent Jail of Hira Nagar vide No. SJH/Esst/P-44/1586-87 dated 31.03.2016. This order has been passed while One Mr. Ganesh Dass filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court for seeking the same treatment as has been given to the petitioner and the Hon'ble Court has passed the order thereby directing the respondents to give the same treatment.
7. In compliance of the said order, respondents have reviewed the case of the petitioner and reverted back the petitioner to the post of Safaiwala by saying that there is no provision in the Jammu and Kashmir Jails (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985 which provides for appointment of a Safaiwala as Warder.
8. In the present case, it is also seen that before passing the reversion order, no show cause notice was served to the petitioner and also not afforded an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
9. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that the Government cannot cancel the order of promotion or revert the official without following the provisions of principle of natural justice and basic principle of granting a hearing before any adverse order is to be passed.
:: 11 :: T.A. No. 61/3390/2021
10. The Article 311(2) of Constitution of India also provides that no such person who holds a civil post in Union, States or any corporation shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
11. It is well settled proposition of law that where the statutory authority is required to do something in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner only. This principal of law has been propounded by the Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Shinghara Singh, AIR 1964 (SC) 358 (3 Judge Bench), Babu Verghese & others Vs. Bar Counsil of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 422 and Bhavnagar University Vs Patilana Sugar Mills(Pvt) Ltd. & others.
12. It is not the cases where Rule does not provide adherence of principle of natural justice. As held earlier in the present cases the reversion order is not simplicitor but is based on while the same treatment sought by another person, then the case of the petitioner was reviewed, so opportunity of show cause before reversion was necessary. The Authorities cannot ignore the principals of natural justice which were made part of the Rules.
13. It is also seen from the record, petitioner was promoted/adjusted on the post of Warder vide order dated 30.09.2002 and after 14 years and more particularly while dealing the case of Mr. Ganesh Dass, then :: 12 :: T.A. No. 61/3390/2021 find out by the respondents that the petitioner was wrongly promoted/adjusted on the post of Warder, hence, this count also impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to law and rules.
14. In view of the above facts situation and legal proposition, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that impugned order 30.03.2016 and communication order dated 31.03.2016 whereby the petitioner reverted back to the post of Safaiwala is not legally sustainable and deserves to be quashed.
15. Accordingly, the T.A. is allowed. Impugned orders dated 30.03.2016 and 31.03.2016 are quashed. Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Warder and to pay the salary to the petitioner on the post of Warder forthwith.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Member (A) Member (J)
/JNS/
Jay Narayan Digitally
signed by Jay
Singh Narayan Singh