Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Baljinder Singh vs D/O Forests Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir on 16 February, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 1553/2020 & CP 210/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 1553/2020 & Contempt Petition 210/2024
Reserved on: - 25.09.2025
Pronounced on: - 16.02.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. TA/1553/2020
1. BALJINDER SINGH aged 59 years S/O Sh. Harbhajan Singh R/o
Vill Hiranagar, Tehsil Hiranagar, Distt. Kathua
...Petitioner
(Advocate: - Mr. Rohit Verma)
Versus
1. STATE OF J & K Through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt.,
Department of Forests, Ecology and Environment, Civil
Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar,
2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, J&K,
Jammu.
3. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, Dogra Hall, Jammu.
4. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, East Circle,
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 1553/2020 & CP 210/2024
5. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, Kathua Forest Division, Teh.
& Distt. Kathua
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld. AAG)
2. CP/210/2024
1. BALJINDER SINGH aged 59 years S/O Sh. Harbhajan Singh R/o
Vill Hiranagar, Tehsil Hiranagar, Distt. Kathua 184142
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Rohit Verma )
Versus
1. Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Secretary, Department of Forests,
Environment and Ecology, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 180001
2. Mr. Roshan Jaggi, Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests, J&K,
Jammu. 180016
3. Mr. K. Ramesh Kumar, Chief Conservator of Forests, Dogra Hall,
Jammu. 180001
4. Mr. M. K. Kumar, Conservator Of Forests, East Circle,
Jammu.180001
5. Mr. Rajan Singh, Divisional Forest Officer, Kathua Forest
Division, Teh. & Distt. Kathua. 184101
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld. AAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 1553/2020 & CP 210/2024
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.2591/2018 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.1553 /2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
1. TA/1553/2020
i) " MANDAMUS commanding the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner as helper w.e. from April 2018 and ensure that no impediment is caused in release thereof till the petitioner is working on the said post.
ii) MANDAMUS commanding the respondents to grant all consequential benefits, including release of arrears of salary of the petitioner as helper w.e. from 01.04.2001 till January 2018.
iii) PROHIBITION commanding the respondents not to take any action in the nature of dismissal or otherwise against the petitioner unless otherwise than in accordance with law.
iv) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
2. CP/210/2024 HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA 1553/2020 & CP 210/2024 " It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case be pleased to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the Contemnors/Respondents for willfully and deliberately disobeying and not complying with the orders/directions dated 30.11.2022 and 15.03.2024 in Τ.Α./1553/2020 titled "Baljinder Singh Versus U.T. of J&K"passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and may also be directed to remain corporally present before this Hon'ble tribunal to explain their position and be punished for flagrant violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the interests of justice.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -
a) The petitioner, Baljinder Singh, was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW) in the Forest Department in January, 1994. He continued to work uninterruptedly in that capacity for more than twenty-four years. On account of his long service, he was regularized as Helper vide Forest Order No. 70 of 2018 dated 10.02.2018, with effect from 01.04.2001, issued by the competent authority. Pursuant to the said regularization, the petitioner was posted and continued to discharge duties as Helper in the Forest Department.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 5 :: TA 1553/2020 & CP 210/2024
b) The petitioner asserts that prior to his engagement as a DRW,
he had served in the Indian Army from 05.11.1977 to 11.03.1980, and that his dismissal from Army service under Army Rule 17 read with Section 20(3) of the Army Act was never disclosed as a bar to his civilian engagement. According to the petitioner, the said fact was within the knowledge of the respondent department at the time of his engagement and throughout his long tenure as a DRW, during which no complaint, criminal case, departmental proceeding or adverse material was ever brought against him.
c) After his regularization as Helper, the petitioner was paid salary for an initial period of three months. However, thereafter, the respondents abruptly stopped the payment of his salary without issuing any formal order, notice or explanation, despite the petitioner continuing to perform his duties. It is the petitioner's case that such stoppage of salary was wholly arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, and discriminatory, particularly when other similarly situated employees regularized under the same order were being paid their regular salary.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 6 :: TA 1553/2020 & CP 210/2024
d) The petitioner further pleaded that he fulfilled all conditions
prescribed under SRO-64 of 1994 and Government Order No. 33-FST of 2018 dated 06.02.2018, and that withholding of salary without any subsisting criminal, civil or departmental proceedings amounted to denial of wages for work performed, infringing Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Apprehending further illegal action, including termination without due process, the petitioner approached the High Court, which upon transfer, came to be registered as the present Transfer Application before this Tribunal.
e) During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. By interim order dated 30.11.2022, this Tribunal directed the respondents to consider release of provisional pension to the petitioner, if eligible, within a stipulated period. The said direction was reiterated by a subsequent order dated 15.03.2024. Alleging non-compliance of these directions, the petitioner instituted Contempt Petition No. 210/2024, asserting willful and deliberate disobedience by the respondents.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 7 :: TA 1553/2020 & CP 210/2024
3. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) In their reply, the respondents raised preliminary objections, contending that the petition involved disputed questions of fact not amenable to adjudication under writ jurisdiction. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands, having suppressed material facts, particularly concerning his past conviction and dismissal from Army service. According to the respondents, no enforceable right accrued in favour of the petitioner, and therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed.
b) On merits, the respondents admitted the fact of regularization of the petitioner as Helper vide Forest Order No. 70 of 2018 dated 10.02.2018. However, it was stated that after issuance of the regularization order, the Divisional Forest Officer approached the Additional Director General of Police, CID, J&K for verification of character and antecedents of the petitioner, as required under Clause-8 of the regularization order.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 8 :: TA 1553/2020 & CP 210/2024
c) It was averred that while the CID furnished positive verification
reports in respect of other employees regularized along with the petitioner, a subsequent communication dated 02.08.2018 conveyed a negative verification report in respect of the petitioner. The said report, according to the respondents, disclosed that the petitioner had been convicted by Army authorities and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, followed by dismissal from service.
d) On receipt of the adverse CID report, the respondents stated that the salary of the petitioner was stopped in terms of Clause-8 of the regularization order. The amount already released to the petitioner for the period from May 2018 to July 2018, totaling ₹86,164/-, was also recovered. It was asserted that no further salary could be released thereafter, and the petitioner was accordingly attached to the office of the Range Officer, Soil Conservation Range, Hiranagar.
e) The respondents denied any arbitrariness or discrimination, contending that other regularized employees continued to draw salary only because they fulfilled the conditions of the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 1553/2020 & CP 210/2024 regularization order and had positive antecedent verification. The petitioner, according to the respondents, could not claim parity in view of the adverse CID report. The respondents also asserted their competence to take appropriate action against the petitioner under the applicable rules, as and when required.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. The present Transfer Application raises a serious challenge to the action of the respondents in stopping the salary and withholding post- retiral benefits of the applicant, coupled with allegations that the respondents relied upon documents which were either not supplied to the applicant or were selectively used against him. Since such an allegation goes to the root of procedural fairness, the same deserves careful examination.
6. At the outset, it is to be noted that the regularization of the applicant as Helper vide Forest Order No. 70 of 2018 dated 10.02.2018 was not unconditional. The said order expressly stipulated that continuation and release of salary would be subject to verification of character and antecedents. The condition was not merely procedural but substantive, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 1553/2020 & CP 210/2024 forming an integral part of the regularization itself. Therefore, the applicant did not acquire an absolute or indefeasible right flowing from the regularization order.
7. The record placed before the Tribunal clearly establishes that, after issuance of the regularization order, the competent authority sought verification from the CID, J&K. While positive reports were received in respect of other similarly placed employees, a specific communication dated 02.08.2018 conveyed adverse antecedent verification against the applicant. The respondents have placed the said communication on record, and the same has not been shown to be fabricated, non-existent or extraneous to service considerations.
8. The applicant has contended that he was neither supplied the adverse verification report nor afforded an opportunity to rebut the same, thereby vitiating the respondents' action. This contention, though attractive at first blush, does not withstand closer scrutiny. The adverse verification did not culminate in imposition of a penalty, dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. The action taken by the respondents was limited to stopping further release of salary in terms of the explicit condition contained in the regularization order. The HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 1553/2020 & CP 210/2024 case, therefore, does not fall within the realm of disciplinary proceedings requiring issuance of a charge-sheet or observance of a full-fledged inquiry under service rules.
9. It is also significant that the adverse verification report was not founded on anonymous inputs or unverified allegations, but on the applicant's prior conviction and dismissal from Army service, facts which stand admitted in the pleadings themselves. The applicant has not disputed the factum of dismissal from Army service; rather, his defence is that such dismissal was illegal or unjustified. This Tribunal, however, is not sitting in appeal over the Army proceedings nor can it re-adjudicate the legality of the applicant's dismissal from military service decades earlier.
10. The allegation that the respondents selectively relied upon documents or suppressed material facts is also found to be without merit. On the contrary, it is evident from the record that the respondents acted only after receipt of the adverse verification from the competent authority, i.e., CID, J&K. The burden lay upon the applicant to demonstrate that the said verification was either false, malafide, or obtained through extraneous considerations. No such material has been produced.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 12 :: TA 1553/2020 & CP 210/2024
11. Equally important is the conduct of the applicant. The applicant continued to work as a Daily Rated Worker for more than two decades and sought regularization under the applicable policy. When regularization was granted subject to verification, the applicant was expected to meet the prescribed conditions. Suppression or understatement of antecedents, even if earlier overlooked, does not create a vested right against enforcement of conditions at a later stage, particularly when public employment and public funds are involved.
12. The Tribunal is conscious that denial of salary is a serious matter;
however, the right to wages is co-terminus with lawful entitlement. Where continuation itself is subject to fulfillment of conditions, and such conditions are found unfulfilled, the employer cannot be faulted for acting in accordance with the governing order. The principle of "no work, no pay" cannot be inverted into "work despite ineligibility, therefore pay".
13. The Contempt Petition arises out of interim directions issued during pendency of the Transfer Application. Once the main Transfer Application has been examined in detail and dismissed on merits, the foundation of the Contempt Petition automatically disappears.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 13 :: TA 1553/2020 & CP 210/2024
Contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to perpetuate or revive a claim which has been found unsustainable in substantive proceedings.
14. There is no material on record to suggest willful or deliberate disobedience of the Tribunal's orders so as to attract contempt jurisdiction. At best, the dispute relates to eligibility and entitlement, which has now been finally adjudicated.
15. For the reasons recorded above:
a) Transfer Application No. 1553/2020 is dismissed on merits.
b) Contempt Petition No. 210/2024 is closed consequently.
c) Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
16. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV