“Fought For Justice, Got Justice, Then Lost Justice — Back To Square One”: J&K And Ladakh High Court Restores 1979 Police Sub-Inspectors’ Seniority And Promotions
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rahul Bharti has allowed a long-pending Letters Patent Appeal by 1979 Sub-Inspectors of the Jammu and Kashmir Police, arising from writ petitions by Deputy Superintendents challenging Government Orders that recast seniority and granted retrospective promotions. The Bench noted later proceedings and administrative steps affecting compliance and held the appellants’ status would continue under the 2008 and 2010 Government Orders implementing the Supreme Court’s 2007 judgment, with consequential seniority and promotions. Pay benefits up to superannuation were made notional, retiral benefits were directed to be revised on the updated status, the relief was confined to the appellants, and compliance was ordered within 60 days.
The appellants were part of the April 1979 batch of direct recruit Sub Inspectors in the Jammu & Kashmir Police, appointed through a selection process initiated in 1978. Before their appointments, a promotion list under Rule 390 of the J&K Police Rules was prepared in April 1978 for prospective operation of the 50% promotion quota to Sub-Inspector. The judgment records that litigation commenced in 1986 concerning inter se seniority of the April 1979 direct recruits vis-à-vis pre-1978 Assistant Sub Inspectors who were granted retrospective promotion in 1985 with effect from April 1978.
The case narrative traces subsequent proceedings, including the setting aside/restoration of earlier High Court outcomes and the reproduction of the Supreme Court’s operative reasoning in the connected chain, including an Article 142 direction against recovery of monetary benefits already conferred. The present appeal was instituted by the batch seeking to protect the service-status position they had obtained pursuant to Government Orders issued in 2008 and 2010, and an interim order stayed operation of the impugned Single Bench judgment insofar as it related to their seniority status as Dy.SP and SP.
The Court opened with a thematic statement: “Thematic reading between the lines of this case is that the appellants fought for justice, got justice and then lost justice to find themselves back to square one…”
On the originating dispute, it recorded that the litigation was “aimed and meant only to salvage their respective seniority as April 1979 direct recruit Sub Inspectors… vis-à-vis pre-1978 Assistant Sub Inspectors (ASIs) granted retrospective promotion in 1985…” and that a promotion list had been prepared “under Rule 390 of J&K Police Rules” for prospective operation of the quota.
While tracing the prior adjudicatory history, the Court reproduced the writ-court operative directions: “I allow the writ petitions and quash the impugned order… The official respondents are directed to place the petitioners… in the seniority list of Sub. Inspectors ahead of private respondents… and accordingly, to redraw the seniority list giving them all consequential benefits.” It also reproduced the Division Bench’s later operative conclusion on infructuousness: “the dispute raised in the writ petition has become infructuous… the direction of the learned Single Judge… cannot be implemented… The direction and order of the learned Single Judge are, therefore, set aside…”
From the Supreme Court’s reproduced operative portion, the Court placed on record: “It is not expected of a government to brazenly favour one set of employees so as to defeat the bona fide claim of the other set of employees… The appeals are allowed. However, in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 142… despite this order if any monetary benefit has been conferred… the same may not be recovered.”
On the pendency of the present appeal, it recorded: “operation of impugned judgment… came to be stayed insofar as it related to the seniority status of the appellants as Dy.SP and SP…”
Regarding later administrative developments, the Court stated: “both Govt. of UT of J&K as well as PHQ have been indulging in jugglery… the same is nothing but a patchwork…” and added: “they cannot be left to wonder as to what gain they attained by their marathon run of litigation from 1986 onwards…” It then recorded the basis for confining relief: “with respect to the fourteen (14) appellants herein we are inclined to restore justice due to them which is that their service status is to stay to be governed by the position as accorded to them in terms of Govt. Order No. Home-597(P) of 2008… read with Govt. Order No. Home-508(P) of 2010…”
The Division Bench “modify[ied] the Single Bench judgment” by “only holding the appellants, fourteen (14) in number now, to be entitled to the service benefits and effect in its entirety from the position vested and bestowed upon them in terms of Govt. Order No. Home-597(P) of 2008 dated 04/09/2008 read with Govt. Order No. Home-508(P) of 2010 dated 29/04/2010 till their respective date of retirement and post-retirement corresponding retiral benefits to be accordingly extended.”
The Court clarified that “the service benefits and effects… shall be notional in terms of pecuniary benefits till their respective superannuation… but in terms of the retiral benefits the appellants shall be entitled to actual benefits by their revised service status.” Respondents No. 1 to 4 that the benefits “notional as well as actual” shall be “if not better but surely in equivalence with likes of Abdul Gaffar Malik… and others” who were “junior to the appellants” but had progressed ahead of them.
The relief was expressly “restricted exclusively for the fourteen (14) appellants herein and not to their co-petitioners” who did not challenge the Single Bench judgment. “Compliance” was ordered “within a period of sixty days” failing which respondents No. 1 to 4 shall render themselves “answerable and accountable.” The matter was “Disposed of accordingly,” and “contempt proceedings… are also dropped.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Ms. Nazia Fazal, Assisting Counsel; Mr. S. S. Ahmed, Advocate.
Case Title: Pyare Lal Bhat and Others v State of J&K and Others.
Neutral Citation: 2025:JKLHC-JMU:4113-DB.
Case Number: LPASW No. 113/2012 c/w CCP(D) No. 4/2020.
Bench: Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Justice Rahul Bharti.
