Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Per Sanjeev Kumar: J

1. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir along-with three others seek to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in this court under Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 29.04.2026 Article 226 of the Constitution of India to throw challenge to an order and judgment dated 23rd of April, 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, Srinagar, ["the Tribunal"] in OA No. 1016/2021 titled Mohammad Yousuf Joo and Ors. vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. whereby, the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondents herein and has directed the petitioners not to withdraw the benefits of SRO 59 of 1990 or make recoveries.

4. It was in the year 2016, the Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti, PHE Department, vide order No. PHE/Estt-16854-55 dated 21st of November, 2016 directed the subordinate officers to implement SRO 59 of 1990 and give the benefit of higher pay scales to the eligible employees, including the respondents herein.

5. Acting upon the instructions of the Chief Engineer, the subordinate offices issued orders on 21st of September, 2017 and 25th of September, 2017 extending the benefit of SRO 59 of 1990 retrospectively to the respondents with effect from 01.04.1994. Later on, as it appears, the matter Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 29.04.2026 came to the notice of Director Finance, PHE, (I&FC Department) in the year 2019, who vide its communication No. PW/Hyd/Acctts/Up-grade/41/2018 dated 29th of January, 2019 found the benefit of SRO 59 erroneously extended to the respondents, that too, by the incompetent authority and accordingly, directed the recovery of benefits granted to the respondents. This withdrawal of benefit of SRO 59 lead to filing of SWP No. 255/2019 by All Kashmir PHE Employees Federation, in which this Court vide its order dated 13.02.2019 stayed the recoveries. It is pleaded that notwithstanding the stay of recoveries passed by this Court on 13.02.2019, the petitioners issued a communication bearing No. 18-19 dated 03.04.2021 and a Circular bearing No. A/Codes/Pension/2020-166 dated 11.02.2021 and initiated the process of recovery of the benefits erroneously released in favour of the respondents.

Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 29.04.2026

7. In the writ petition, the writ petitioners did not lay specific claim on their entitlement to the benefits under SRO 59 of 1990, but claimed that the amount though erroneously paid under the said SRO could not be recovered in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih and Ors, reported as 2015 (4) SCC 334.

Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 29.04.2026

25. The petitioners shall be well within their right to correct the mistake and refix the salary or pensionary benefits as the case may be, by withdrawing the benefit of SRO 59 erroneously extended to the respondents.

26. With the aforesaid modification, the judgment impugned is upheld and this petition disposed of, accordingly.

                           (SANJAY PARIHAR)               (SANJEEV KUMAR)
                                     JUDGE                          JUDGE
          SRINAGAR:
          29.04.2026
          Altaf


                                  Whether approved for reporting? Yes





Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
29.04.2026