SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2151

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mohd Rafiq – Appellant
Versus
D/o Home Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
T.A./6116/2021



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)

Hearing through video conferencing Transfer Application No. 6116/2021 Reserved on: - 22.04.2025 Pronounced on: - 18.02.2026 HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)

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

Mohd Rafiq aged 36 years, Constable No, 627/P, S/O Mir Hussain R/O ward No.2 near Police Line Poonch.

…Applicant (Advocate: - Mr. M A Shad, Advocate)

Versus

1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Home Department, Civil Secretariat Jammu/Srinagar.

2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Jammu/Srinagar

3 Inspector General of Police, Jammu Range Jammu

4. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Rajouri -Poonch Range, Headquarters at Rajouri.

5. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Poonch.

…Respondents (Advocate:- Mr. Hunar Gupta, Ld. AAG)

ORDER Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.1088/2011 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.6116/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

a) “ Writ of certiorari, quashing the order No.2745 of 2010 dated

24.08.2010 which is illegal, discriminatory arbitrary issued in violation to article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and also issued with malafide intention.

b) Writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to promote to the petitioner as selection grade constable on operational grounds retrospectively along with all emoluments of service, on the analogy of other constables/selection grade constables who participated in the joint operation with the petitioner and promoted.

c) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -

a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No.

1088/2011 originally filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu, which upon reorganization stood transferred to this Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No.

6116/202.

b) The applicant, Mohd. Rafiq, aged 36 years, is serving as Constable No. 627/P in District Police Poonch. He challenges Order No. 2745 of 2010 dated 24.08.2010 whereby his claim for out-of-turn promotion to the rank of Selection Grade Constable on operational grounds was rejected. The applicant seeks quashment of the said order and a direction to the respondents to grant him retrospective promotion along with consequential service benefits on parity with other similarly situated constables who allegedly participated in the same anti-

militancy operation.

c) The applicant pleads that he had rendered commendable and courageous service on the anti-militancy front and had actively participated in joint operations with the Army and Police against militants. It is asserted that in the course of such operations he fired upon militants and contributed significantly to neutralization of anti-national elements. According to him, his role was exceptional and duly recognized at the field level.

d) It is further pleaded that the Senior Superintendent of Police, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rajouri-Poonch Range, and the Inspector General of Police, Jammu Range, recommended his case for out-of-turn promotion to Selection Grade Constable. However, despite such recommendations, the Director General of Police did not accord approval. Aggrieved thereof, the applicant earlier approached the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 2009/2006, which was disposed of with a direction to consider his claim. Pursuant thereto, the respondents considered the matter but rejected his claim through the impugned order.

e) The applicant contends that the sole ground cited for rejection was that he had received cash rewards and that his performance was not “exceptional.” He disputes thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top