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)(J&K) 660

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
GHULAM MOHAMMAD LONE – Appellant
Versus
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT) – Respondent
WP(C) 1803 / 2025



HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 20.04.2026 Pronounced on:08.05.2026 Uploaded on: 08.05.2026 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full WP(C) No.1803/2025 GHULAM MOHAMMAD LONE ...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT Through: - Mr. M. A. Beigh, Advocate.

Vs.

UT OF J&K AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioner has challenged order No.DULB/Acctts/ 224 of 2025 dated 08.03.2025, issued by respondent No.2, whereby retrospective effect to promotion of the petitioner as Secretary granted vide Order No.DULB/Estt/1704 dated 15.11.2010 with effect from 07.08.1996, has been ab initio rescinded and the excess amount drawn by the petitioner on account on retrospective effect of his promotion has been directed to be recovered from his DCRG emoluments.

2) It appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.800-1500/ for 89 days vide order No.511/DLB/Estt of 1988 dated 28.03.1988. The said order was continued in terms of Order No.NAC/G/88/176-77 dated 02.07.1988 with effect from 29.06.1988 and later on it was confirmed by Director, Local Bodies, Kashmir, vide No.DLB/Estt/1708/3407 dated 21.02.1991. Vide order No.DLB/Estt/1708/236 of 1995 dated 30.08.1995, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 retrospectively with effect from 12.08.1994. Thereafter he was further adjusted as Secretary-cum-Clerk in NAC, Sumbal, by the Administrator, vide order No.NAC/S/96/435-36 dated 07.08.1996 followed by order No.DLB/Estt/1708/3711 dated 05.11.1996 in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 with effect from 07.08.1996.

3) The petitioner availed in-situ promotion under SRO 14 dated 15.01.1996 from the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 to the pay scale of Rs.5150-8300 vide order No.DULB/Estt/ NF/321 of 2006 dated 11.05.2006 with effect from 01.09.2005. Thereafter the petitioner was placed as I/C Secretary in his own pay and grade vide order No.DULB/Estt/1485/811 of 2009 dated 15.12.2009 read with order No.DULB/Estt/820 of 2009 dated 18.12.2009. The petitioner was thereafter given the look after charge of the post of Executive Officer in MC, Wattergam, vide Government Order No.162-HUD of 2010 dated 23.04.2010 and thereafter he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.6500- 10500 attached to the post of Secretary, in terms of order No.DULB/Estt/1708-II dated 15.11.2010 retrospectively from 07.08.1996.

4) The petitioner was finally prematurely retired from his service in terms of Government Order No.365-JK/GAD of 2022 dated 31.03.2022, when he was functioning as Incharge Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Frisal.

5) It is further case of the petitioner that in the year 1992, in terms of Government Order No.160-HUD/LSG of 1992 dated 30.11.1992, he along with his other colleagues was deputed to New Delhi for attending a course called ‘Diploma in Local Self Govt. (LSGD)’. The petitioner is stated to have qualified the said course and after his return, he as well as his other colleagues were granted benefit of two advance increments by the respondents on the basis of Government Order No.760-HUD/LSG of 1981 dated

29.10.1981.

6) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the same has been passed in derogation of the rules and the legal position without following the principles of natural justice, that too after he had already superannuated from service. It has been contended that the orders of promotion and release of grades in favour of the petitioner were issued more than 15 years back, therefore, no recovery could have been effected from him, that too from his retiral benefits which is otherwise forbidden in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

7) It has been further contended that the action of the respondents with regard to cancellation of two advance increments granted to the petitioner and initiation of recovery of the same by making fresh

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