##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on: 09.12.2025

Pronounced on: 26.12.2025

Uploaded on: 26.12.2025

Whether the operative part or full

judgment is pronounced: Full

WP(C) No.1689/2023

c/w

i)WP(C) No.1011/2023

ii)WP(C) No.2551/2023

GHULAM MOHAMMAD PEER & ORS.

GHULAM JEELANI HAQAA & ANR.

ALI MOHAMMAD BHAT ...PETITIONERS/APPELLANT(S)

Through: - Mr. Nissar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate.

Vs.

UT OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1) By this common judgment, afore-titled three writ

petitions, which involve the determination of identical

issues, are proposed to be disposed of.

(i) In WP(C) No.1689/2023, the petitioners have

challenged order No.1163-GAD of 2018 dated

18.07.2018, whereby their intervening period with

effect from 16.07.1999 to 11.11.2010 has been

treated as on duty on notional basis. The petitioners

have also sought a direction commanding the

respondents to pay interest @12% per annum on the

WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w

WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 Page 1 of 16

unpaid salary for the period with effect from

16.07.1999 to 11.11.2010.

(ii) In WP(C) No.1011/2023, the petitioners have

challenged order No.RCS/LS/13 dated 27.02.2019,

whereby their claim as projected vide their writ

petition bearing SWP No.1707/2018, has been

rejected. Challenge has also been thrown to order

No.122-Adm of 2019 dated 18.07.2019 to the extent

the intervening period of service of the petitioner

No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 with effect from

07.04.2004 to 25.10.2007 has been decided as on

duty on notional basis. The petitioners have further

sought a direction upon the respondents

commanding them to pay unpaid salary in their

favour from December, 1998 to 26.10.2007, along

with interest @12% per annum and give them same

treatment as has been accorded to the petitioners in

SWP No.812/2008 in terms of judgment dated

29.05.2019 passed in CPSW No.718/2017 upheld

by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.239/2022

vide order dated 25th August, 2022.

(iii) In WP(C) No.2551/2023, the petitioner has

challenged order No.185-LC of 2022 dated

21.09.2022, whereby his intervening period with

effect from 15.07.1999 to 22.11.2010 has been

decided as on duty on notional basis. The petitioner

has also sought a direction upon the respondents

commanding them to pay his unpaid salary from

15.07.1999 to 22.11.2010 along with interest @12%

per annum and give him the same treatment as has

been accorded to the petitioners of SWP

WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w

WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 Page 2 of 16

No.812/2008 in terms of judgment dated

29.05.2019 passed in CPSW No.718/2017 upheld

by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.239/2022

vide order dated 25^th August, 2022.

2) The facts emanating from the pleadings of the parties

are that the petitioners were ex-employees of the Jammu and

Kashmir Cooperative Consumer Federation Limited

(CONFED) which was wound up in the year 1999 in terms of

Cabinet decision dated 15.07.1999. The said decision

provided for winding up of the CONFED and it was also

stipulated that the employees would be suitably adjusted.

The department was directed to submit a detailed proposal

at the earliest. Another Cabinet decision was taken on

24.04.2002 and it was decided that a Golden Handshake

Scheme for Cooperative institutions should be financed from

sale of their assets and government funding would not be

available for this purpose. Accordingly, the Divisional

Commissioners of Jammu and Kashmir were asked to

evaluate the assets of the Apex Cooperative institutions and

submit a report to the Government.

3) It is case of the petitioners that some erstwhile

employees of CONFED including the petitioners herein did

not opt for of Golden Handshake Scheme and they insisted

WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w

WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 Page 3 of 16

for their suitable adjustment in terms of Cabinet decision

dated 15.07.1999.

4) It seems that about 134 employees of CONFED filed a

writ petition