##PAGE1##

:: 1 :: TA 4402/2020

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU

(RESERVED)

Hearing through video conferencing

Transfer Application No. 4402/2020

Reserved on: - 09.09.2025

Pronounced on: - 03.02.2026

HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)

1. Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Prabh Dayal, Age 42 years, R/o Village

Sundla Tehsil Majalta, District Udhampur, At present posted as Look

After Naib Tehsildar Niabat

…Applicant

(Advocate: - Mr. Rahul Aggarwal with Mr. V Bhushan Gupta)

Versus

1. State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. of J&K,

Revenue Department, Srinagar.

2. Financial Commissioner, Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar.

3. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu.

4. Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur.

…Respondent

(Advocate:- Mr. Hunar Gupta, Ld. DAG)

ARUN

KUMAR

ARUN 2026.02.1

KUMAR 2

11:26:58+

05'30'

:: 2 :: TA 4402/2020

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.1317/2018 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court

of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A

No.4402/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking

following relief: -

a) “It is most humbly prayed that an appropriate writ, direction or

order may kindly be issued commanding the official

respondents to accord the right and correct placement to the

applicant in the Final Seniority List of Patwaries issued by the

respondents Notification No. DIVCOMJMU(ESTT) (II) of 2018

dated 7/5/2018 by reflecting the name of the applicant at S.No.

335 of the said seniority list i.e. immediately below S.No. 334

Nawaz Ahmed and by pushing down the person figuring at

S.No. 335 to S.No. 336, S.No. 336 to 337, 337to

338..............with all consequential benefits.

Any other writ, direction or order which in the facts

and circumstances of the case this Hon'ble Court deems fit, the

same be also granted in favour of the applicant.”

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the O.A., are that the

applicant’s late father, Shri Prabh Dayal, was an employee of the

Revenue Department and died in harness. It is further stated in the

O.A. that owing to acute financial hardship, the applicant, then having

ARUN

KUMAR

ARUN 2026.02.1

KUMAR 2

11:26:58+

05'30'

:: 3 :: TA 4402/2020

passed 10+2, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds

under SRO-43 of 1994. After inquiry and requisite recommendations,

the applicant was appointed as Patwari on compassionate grounds by

Order No. FC(NG) 463 of 1998 dated 02.07.1998 (read with

respondent No.3’s letter No.102/101/204-05 dated 08.06.1998) in the

pay scale of Rs. 3050–4590, and was deputed for Patwar training at

the Revenue Training Institute, Jammu. The applicant joined and was

deputed for training on 12.08.1998. He successfully completed the

training; the Principal of the Revenue Training Institute relieved him

vide No.44/RTI dated 18.06.1999 with direction to report to the

concerned Deputy Commissioner for further duty. It is averred that

the applicant’s service book records the date of first appointment as

17.08.1998; it is averred that this entry is incorrect and that the correct

date is either 02.07.1998 (date of appointment order) or, alternatively,

12.08.1998 (date of relieving from training). It is further averred that

in SWP No.1221/2013 (Mohan Lal v. State of J&K), the Hon’ble

High Courtvide order dated 17.8.2017 quashed the seniority list dated

12.12.2009 and directed framing of a fresh seniority list as per merit

in the SSRB selection list. Pursuant to that direction, respondents

ARUN

KUMAR

ARUN 2026.02.1

KUMAR 2

11:26:58+

05'30'

:: 4 :: TA 4402/2020

issued a tentative seniority list by Notification No.

DIVCOMJMU(ESTT) 39 of 2018 dated 04.02.2018, calling for

objections within 10 days. The applicant avers that due to limited

circulation and his posting in a remote area he could not file

objections within the short period; upon learning of the list he

approached the Deputy Commissioner who stated that the direction of

Hon’ble High Court applied only to