##PAGE1##

Sr. No. 09

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

LPASW No. 54/2016

Pronounced on : 29.01.2026

Uploaded on : 30.01.2026

1. Union of India through .....Appellant(s)

Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.

2. Engineer-in-Chief’s Branch,

Integrated HQ of MOD (Army),

Kashmir House, New Delhi-11.

3. HQ Chief Engineer, Northern Command,

PIN 914698, C/o 56-APO.

4. HQ Commander Works Engineer, Udhampur,

PIN 900386, C/o 56-APO.

5. Garrison Engineer (Utilities), Udhampur,

PIN 900386, C/o 56-APO.

Through :- None

v/s

Romesh Chander (Mate Electrician), .....Respondent(s)

S/o Sh. Mohan Lal,

R/o Malhar, Tehsil & District Udhampur ( J & K ).

Through :- Mr. K S Johal, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Karman S Johal, Advocate

Mr. Devansh Singh Thakur, Advocate

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

ORDER (ORAL)

2 9 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 6

1. This, intra court appeal, by the Union of India, is directed against

the order and judgment dated 16.10.2014 [“the impugned order”]

passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court [“the Writ

Court”] in SWP No. 2476/2013 c/w SWP No. 1200/2013, whereby

the Writ Court has disposed of both the petitions by holding that

although the impugned order repatriating the respondent to his

parent posting at Leh was not in consonance with law, yet held the

LPASW No. 54/2016 2

respondent entitled to the salary for the period w.e.f. 24.05.2013 i.e.

the date on which the order of status-quo was passed by the Writ

Court till the order impugned i.e. 16.10.2014 was passed.

2. The appellants are aggrieved and have assailed the impugned order,

primarily on the ground that, the Writ Court has not appreciated that

the status-quo order was passed on 24.05.2013, whereas the

appellants had relieved the respondent on 22.05.2013. It is

contended that the Writ Court also failed to appreciate that, for the

period the respondent has been held entitled to salary, he has not

performed his duties anywhere, either in Udhampur or in Leh.

3. Per contra, Mr. K S Johal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the

respondent, would argue that it was a clear case set up by the

respondent in his petition that the relieving order purportedly issued

on 22.05.2013 by the appellants was a back dated order which was

actually passed after 24.05.2013 i.e. after the order of status-quo.

He would, therefore, submit that the order of relieving dated

22.05.2013 was manipulated to overcome the order of status-quo

and, therefore, in such circumstances, the respondent should be

deemed to have been working at Udhampur and entitled to his

salary.

4. Having heard learned Senior counsel for the respondent at

length and perused the material available on record, we are of

the considered opinion that the crucial issue, as to whether the

order dated 22.05.2013, whereby the respondent has been stated to

be relieved by the appellants, is a back dated order issued after

24.05.2013, as alleged by the respondent in the petition and denied

LPASW No. 54/2016 3

by the appellants, has not been considered and decided by the Writ

Court.

5. The Writ Court has, though, come to a right conclusion that the

impugned order of transfer/repatriation from Udhampur office of

the appellants to Leh was perfectly legal and did not call for

interference, however, the Writ Court ought not to have directed the

appellants to release the salary of the respondent for the period

w.e.f. 24.05.2013 i.e. from the date of status-quo order till the

disposal of the writ petitions i.e. 16.10.2014, without first recording

a specific finding as to whether on the date of grant of status-quo

order i.e. 24.05.2013, the respondent was posted in Udhampur

office and had not been relieved.

6. As observed above, the Writ Court has not adverted to the afore-

said issue and has simply directed the appellants to release the

salary of the respondent for the intervening period. The Writ Court

had not even held the order of relieving date i.e. 22.05.2013, which

was challenged by the respondent in the subsequent writ petition,