Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6930
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Ram Mohan Johri, A
Daljit Singh, Bahar Ahmed, Sandeep Kumar, Ram Krishan, Rakesh Kumar, Shabir Ahmed, Liaqat Ali, Muzaffar Hussain – Appellant
Versus
UT of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
Original Application No. 1289/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. N.D. Qazi
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Thapa, AAG
Employees in stop-gap positions are entitled to equal pay for equal work and cannot have their salaries recovered without evidence of fraud or misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Equal pay for equal work - The applicants sought to stay the operation of impugned orders and regularize their services after years of continuous employment. The court found that the applicants were entitled to equal pay and regularization based on the Supreme Court's rulings. (Paras 1, 17, 18, 19)
(B) Recovery of salary - The court ruled that recovery of salary from employees without fraud or misconduct is impermissible, reaffirming the principle that employees should not be penalized for administrative errors. (Paras 4, 18)
Facts of the case:
The applicants were appointed in 1999-2000, confirmed in 2001, but later had their appointments cancelled. They were allowed to continue on a stop-gap basis but faced withdrawal of benefits and salary recovery.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled in favor of the applicants, restoring their previous salary and directing consideration for regularization.
Issues: The court addressed the legality of withdrawing benefits and the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that employees should not suffer due to administrative lapses and are entitled to fair treatment and pay.
Result: Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of applicants' employment (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding recovery and benefits (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis on applicants' rights (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court's decision on orders and regularization (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. conclusion and directives to respondents (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a) “Stay the operation of impugned Order No.DFC & CAG/Legal-1909/2023/30-303 dated 15-09-2023.
b) Stay the operation of impugned order No.207-DFCS & CAG of 2023 dated 21-09-2023.
c) Directing the respondents to release the salary attached to the post on the basis of equal pay for equal work in light of the judgment passed the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "State of Punjab & Ors V/s Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 5176.
d) Directing the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the account having rendered more than 10 years of services without any interruption and without any order from the Hon'ble Court.
e) Directing the respondents to release the unpaid salary of the applicants withheld by the respondents illegally and arbitrary from last more than 11 months.”
2. The facts emanating from the pleadings of the applicants reveals that applicants came to be appointed in the year 1999 & 2000 and their appointment among other was later on confirmed by the Administrative Department, Food & Supplies Department I&K vide Govt. Order No.09-FS of 2001 dated 06-02-2001. However, the appointments subsequently were cancelled by the General Administrative Department, J&K vide Govt. Order No.513-GAD of 2001 dated 14-05-2001 which is not in dispute. The applicants called in question the order passed by the General Administration Department but challenged that unsuccessfully however, the Hon'ble Court observed while dismissing the writ petition of the applicants, the appointment of the applicant will be treated on stop gap arrangement and they will be allowed to continue in service on stop gap basis till such time, the persons are appointed by the official respondent in accordance with law and on the strength of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Court the applicants right from the date of appointment and right from the date of dismissal of the writ petition are continuing against the post held by them on stop gap basis which is not in dispute and the same stands admitted by the respondents in the communication which are under challenge before this Hon'ble Court. However, the respondents while implementing the orders formulated a Class within a class, the respondent No.5 was given the benefit of SRO-193 dated 24-04-2018 the said benefit was never extended in favour of the applicants which became the bone of contention. The applicants filed a writ petition bearing WP(C) No.4324/2019 titled "Daljit Singh & Ors. V/s UT of J&K & Ors. "seeking identical benefits that have been granted in favour of private respondent No.5. The case filed by the private respondent No.5 challenging order dated 14-05-2001 was dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. Ld counsel for applicant submitted that the private respondent was granted benefit of SRO-193 dated 24-04-2018. Further the writ petition filed by the private respondent bearing SWP No. 1131/2001 titled “Khursheed Ahmed V/s State & Ors" was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 04-03-2008. He further stated that the applicants and private respondent are working as Stop gap employees in terms of Govt. Order No 59-CAPD dated 21-04- 2006. The writ petition filed by the applicants/private respondents stands dismissed by the Hon'ble Court but the private respondent continued to get the benefit of SRO-193 dated 24-04-2018 and was paid the perk t
