CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (RESERVED ON 16.07.2025)

JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU Hearing through video conferencing Transfer Application No.61/8528/2021 Pronounced on: - This the 10.12.2025 HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)

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

Ghulam Abass Butt, aged 65 years, S/O Abdul Suban Butt, R/o Sazan, Tehsil & District Doda.

....Applicant (Through Advocate: Mr. Rahil Raja)

VERSUS

1. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Through Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, J&K Govt.

Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/ Jammu.

2. Director, Rural Development Department, Jammu.

3. Accountant General, J&K State, Jammu.

….Respondents (Through Advocate: Mr. Rajesh Thapa, Ld. A.A.G. for R- 1 &2 Mr. Akshay Sadotra for R 3)

O R D E R Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 235/2016 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/8528/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:

“i) i) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondent No. 2 to grant the 3rd time bound in-situ promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.2000 in terms of Rule 5(ii) (b) of SRO 14 of 1996 dated 15.01.1996;

ii) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the grade of post of Inspector Panchayat in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his confirmation against the said post i.e. 14.02.2001;

iii) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to re-fix the pensionary benefits of the petitioner in accordance with the last pay drawn as arrived after grant of 3rd time bound in- situ promotion w.e.f. 01.05.2000 as well as the grade of the post of Inspector Panchayat w.e.f. 14.02.2001;

iv) Any other writ, order or directions which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents along with cost of the petition.”

3. Shorn of non-essential details of the case is that the petitioner was employee of the respondent department and retired in the year 2007. Further pleaded that petitioner despite his full entitlement to grant of 3rd time bound in-situ promotion w.e.f. 01.05.2000 in terms of SRO 14 of 1996, has not been granted the same. Although no reasons for withholding the same have been assigned to the petitioner, however, the petitioner, after his retirement, has been given to understand that the grant of selection grade of Rs. 530-750 to the petitioner w.e.f. 0.01.1987 has been treated to be a promotion and on that basis petitioner has not been granted 3rd in-situ promotion. Law is well settled that mere grant of a selection grade is not a promotion and the same, therefore, cannot be made a basis for rejecting the claim of petitioner for 3rd time bound in-situ promotion. Even the fact that petitioner was granted the charge of the post of Inspector Panchayat cannot be made a ground for refusing the benefit of 3rd in-situ promotion. The abovesaid position has already been clarified by the Finance Department of the State vide O.M. No. A/29(96)-1034 dated 22.10.1996, however, the claim of the petitioners has been denied without any rhyme or reason. On one hand, 3rd in-situ promotion has been denied to the petitioner and on the other hand even after his confirmation as Inspector Panchayat in the year 2001, the grade of the post has not been released in his favour.

Hence the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents orally argued that matter is highly time barred and petitioner has not explained about 15 years delay. This litigation needs to be nipped in the bud.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non granting of 3rd time bound in-situ promotion to the petitioner is erroneous and illegal, hence, deserves to be quashed. Further submitted that all