1. Petitioner challenges a tribunal order granting retrospective out-of-turn promotion, asserting the employee failed to establish a legal entitlement and the claim was previously rejected. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 913
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 2059/2023
Reserved on: 08.10.2026 Pronounced on: 15.10.2026 Uploaded on: 15.10.2026
Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full
1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Additional Chief Secretary to Govt., Home Department, Civil Sectt. Srinagar/ Jammu.
2. Director General of Police, J&K, Srinagar/ Jammu.
Through: Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin-ul-showkat Qadiri, Sr. AAG
Vs.
1. Nissar Ahmad Mir, Aged 51 years, S/o Gh. Nabi Mir, R/o Shalimar, Srinagar. …Contesting Respondent
2. Shri Ab Khalid Khan 4511/NGO (Now SP) (Presently posted as Addl.SP SIA Kashmir)
3. Shri Rajni Sharma, 4367/NGO (Now SP) (Presently posted Dy.Commandant IRP 1st Bn.)
4. Shri Imtiyaz Ahmad Dar 4521/NGO (Now Dy.SP)(Presently posted as Dy.SP AHJ Srinagar)
5. Shri Aijaz Ahmad Bhat 4522/NGO (Now Dy.SP)
6. (C S (D P N h e y r o l r . e l w S i s N P e S D e n a S w y t n e l . y S d c D u P e p e e ) r o l i h p ( s t P y t i ) r e K e S d o s T u a e W n s r t S 4 D l y 5 S y 4 P . r S 0 i o n P / s a t N C e g G d a ID r O a ) s ...Proforma Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate with Ms. Nighat Amin, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
(Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati)
Chief Justice
SRINAGAR
15.10.2026
“Mubashir ’
Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argue that promotion recommendations do not confer vested rights and parity claims cannot override prior rejection and departmental seniority rules; respondent asserts discriminatory denial of benefits. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. The court observed that mere recommendations do not create enforceable rights, principles of parity in out-of-turn promotions are limited, and long-standing dormant claims bar relief via acquiescence. (Para 15 , 17 , 22 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 36 , 38 , 39 )
4. A recommendation for promotion does not confer a vested, enforceable right, and claims for parity in out-of-turn promotions are inadmissible where facts are materially distinguishable. (Para 16 , 17 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
5. The writ petition is allowed, the tribunal’s order is set aside, and the original departmental rejection order is restored without disturbing the respondent’s actual promotion date. (Para 40 )
6. Does a recommendation for out-of-turn promotion create a vested legal right to such promotion?
No, a recommendation by an authority is merely a procedural step and does not crystallize into an enforceable or indefeasible right to promotion unless supported by service rules or specific mandate. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
7. Can an employee claim parity for out-of-turn promotion based on benefits granted to another individual?
No, out-of-turn promotion is individualized based on specific facts and circumstances. Parity cannot be claimed mechanically, particularly when facts distinguish the claimant from the employee who previously gained relief. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 29 )
8. What is the impact of failing to pursue a claim for a significant duration on the doctrine of acquiescence?
A party who fails to challenge an adverse rejection order for an extended period, only seeking revival upon seeing another receive a benefit, exhibits conduct barring relief based on acquiescence and estoppel. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 )
JUDGEMENT
15.10.2026
Per, Wasim Sadiq Nargal: J
1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the judgment dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in O.A. No. 1413/2021, titled Nissar Ahmad Mir v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and others, whereby the order bearing No.PHQ Order No. 2607 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021 passed by Director General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar, was quashed and the petitioners were directed to extend the benefit of retrospective out-of-turn promotion to respondent No. 1 notionally with effect from 08.06.1998 and monetarily with effect from 29.09.2006.
2. The case of respondent No. 1 is that he was recommended for out-of-turn promotion to the rank of Inspector on operational grounds in the year 1998. As his claim was not accepted at the relevant time, he approached this Court by way of SWP No. 2301/2001 in the earlier round of litigation, seeking, inter alia, promotion with effect from 22.06.2000, the date on which some of his junior batch mates were granted out-of-turn promotion.
3. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 05.05.2006 by this Court. In compliance thereof, respondent No. 1 was promoted to the rank of Inspector with immediate effect vide PHQ Order No. 3007 of 2006 dated 29.09.2006. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed another writ petition registered as SWP No. 1965/2007, seeking retrospective effect to his promotion. The said petition was also disposed of by this Court on 15.07.2009, with a direction to the competent authorities to consider his representation in accordance with law. The representation was subsequently rejected by the Director General of Police vide a detailed consideration order bearing PHQ order No. 1230 of 2010 dated 29.03.2010. Upon rejection, the respondent No.1 preferred Contempt Petition No. 77/2010 before this Court. However, later on in the year 2025 the contempt petition was withdrawn by respondent No.1 with liberty to challenge the said rejection order.
4. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed yet another petition registered as SWP No. 762/2017 challenging the rejection order dated 29.03.2010. Pertinent to mention that in the year 2020 the Government of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir ordered all service matters to be transferred to learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu and the case of respondent No.1 was also transferred to Learned CAT. Consequently, the respondent No.1 filed amended writ petition before this Court on the ground of accrual of fresh cause of action, however, the same came to be dismissed by this Court.
5. It is after the dismissal of said writ petition by this Court respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal, by filing O.A. No. 61/104/2020, & MA/61/43/2020, MA/61/42/2020 seeking retrospective effect to his out-of-turn promotion on the analogy of Abdul Khalid Khan. The Learned Tribunal, vide order dated 25.11.2020, directed the petitioners to consider his claim in light of the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Abdul Khalid v/s State of Jammu and Kashmir. Upon reconsideration, the petitioners rejected the claim of respondent No. 1 vide consideration order No. 2607 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021. The said order was challenged before the Learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 1413/2021, which was allowed vide judgment dated 24.06.2022. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioners have approached this Court.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and the material available on record. It is contended that respondent No. 1 was promoted to the rank of Inspector in compliance with the judgment dated 05.05.2006, but no direction was issued granting retrospective effect to his promotion from the date of his initial recommendation.
7. I
