HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

WP(C ) No. 2368/2025

Reserved on: 29.08.2025

Pronounced on: 11.09.2025

1 Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology

Jammu

2 The Registrar, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences &

Technology, Main Campus Chatha Jammu

3. The Comptroller, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences

& Technology, Main Campus Chatha Jammu

Petitioners

Through: - Mr.Anil Khajuria Advocate

Vs.

1.Sat Paul son of Sh. Maheshwar Dass, resident of House NO. 89

Rehari Chungi Tehsil and District Jammu

2 Pankaj Kumar, son of Parkash Chander, resident of Parashar Ashram

Thanda Paddar, Industrial Estate Udhampur..

…Respondent(s)

Through: - Mr.Abhinav Sharma Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma Advocate.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ EEV KUMAR,JUDGE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR JUDGE

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Kumar, J

1 Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and

Technology, Jammu [“SKUAST-J”], along with its Registrar and

Controller, have approached this Court by way of present petition

filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an

order and judgment dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in

2

T.A No. 204/2024 (SWP No.2135/2018), titled Sat Pal and another vs.

State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, whereby, the Tribunal, while

allowing the aforesaid TA, has directed the petitioners herein to re-fix

the pay scale of the respondents herein at Rs. 5000-8000 (now revised

to Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200), w.e.f. 21.04.2003, i.e.,

the date of their appointment, along with all consequential benefits,

including arrears of salary.

2 Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by

Mr. Anil Khajuria, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, we deem it appropriate to take note of a few relevant facts.

3 The respondents were appointed as Artist-cum-

Photographers in SKUAST-J vide University Order No. 05 (Est) of

2003, dated 21.04.2003, in the then pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590. In the

year 1998, two separate Universities, namely SKUAST-K (Kashmir

Division) and SKUAST-J (Jammu Division), were created. The Board

of Management of SKUAST-J, in its first meeting held on 15.06.2000,

created various posts including two posts of Artist-cum-Photographer

with the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590, as is evident from University

Order No. 106 of 2000 dated 15.06.2000. The said posts were

advertised in the prescribed scale, to which the respondents applied,

and on being selected, were appointed, accordingly. The respondents

accepted their appointments in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 (pre-

revised) and continued to discharge their duties without any protest or

demur. It was only in the year 2008, the respondents filed SWP

No. 1009/2008 before this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus directing

the petitioners herein to grant them the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000

3

(pre-revised) from the date of their appointment. The said writ petition,

however, was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.10.2018,

with liberty reserved to the respondents to file a fresh writ petition only

on a fresh cause of action. Immediately thereafter, the respondents filed

a fresh petition (SWP No. 2135/2018), seeking, inter alia, a direction to

the petitioners to upgrade the pay scale of the post of Artist-cum-

Photographer to Rs. 5000-8000 (pre-revised) retrospectively from the

date of their appointment, together with consequential benefits

including arrears of salary. Upon enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir

Reorganisation Act, 2019, the said writ petition came to be transferred

to the Tribunal and was registered as TA No. 204/2024.

4 The aforesaid TA was contested by the petitioners herein

by filing their written statement before the Tribunal. It was submitted

that two posts of Artist-cum-Photographer in SKUAST-J were created

by the Board of Management of SKUAST-J in its first meeting held on

15.06.2000, and the same were duly notified for making selection of

eligible candidates. The respondents participated in the selection

process, and emerged successful. Resultantly, both the respondents

were appointed as Artists-cum-Photographers in the pay scale of

Rs. 3050-4590 (pre-revised) vide separate orders of appointment dated

21.04.2003. It was also the plea taken by the petitioners therein that

since the earlier writ petition filed by the respondents, i.e., SWP

No. 1009/2008, seeking similar relief, stood dismissed as withdrawn, as

such, the subsequent petition on the same cause of action and for the

same relief was barred by the principle of res judicata. The petitioners

also pleaded before the Tribunal that during the pendency of the said

4

writ petition, and taking cognizance of the representation made by the

respondents and the grievance projected therein, the matter regarding

up-gradation of the posts of Artist-cum-Photographer was placed

before the Board of Management in its 26th meeting and, upon its

approval, was further placed before the 15

th

University Council meeting

under Agenda Item No. 4 (15). The University Council approved the

up-gradation of the posts in question from Rs. 3050-4590 to

Rs.5000-8000 (pre-revised), now revised to Rs.9300-34800 with Grade

Pay of Rs. 4200, but only with prospective effect. The decision of the

University Council was assented to by the Chancellor, and in

consequence thereof, SKUAST-J issued Notification dated 01.02.2017,

upgrading the pay scale of the posts in question to Rs. 5000-8000 (pre-

revised), prospectively.

5 The respondents, however, were not satisfied with the

decision of the petitioners granting the benefit of up-gradation only

prospectively and, therefore, assailed the decision of the University by

way of SWP No. 2135/2018, which, upon transfer to the Tribunal after

the enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019,

came to be registered as TA No. 204/2024. It is this TA which has been

disposed of by the Tribunal vide the judgment impugned in this

petition.

6 The judgment impugned is challenged by the petitioners

primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact

that the posts of Artist-cum-Photographer in the pay scale of

Rs. 3050-4590 were created by the SKUAST-J pursuant to the decision

taken by its Board of Management in the first meeting held on

5

15.06.2000, and that the same were also notified through a

Advertisement Notification in the said pay scale. The Tribunal also did

not appreciate that the appointment of the respondents as Artists-cum-

Photographers was made in the grade of Rs. 3050-4590, which

appointment was duly accepted by the respondents by submitting their

joining reports and discharging their duties for almost five years.

7 The impugned judgment is also assailed on the ground that

the Tribunal did not consider or decide a specific objection raised by

the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the petition, on the

ground that earlier writ petition filed in the year 2008, seeking similar

reliefs, stood dismissed as withdrawn.

8 Per contra, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned senior counsel

appearing for the respondents would submit that, in terms of the

University Statutes, the pay scale of the post of Artist-cum-

Photographer was revised to Rs. 5000-8000 by Notification No. 01 of

1994 dated 08.04.1994. It is argued that despite being aware that the

post in question carried the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000, the petitioners

notified it for selection in the lesser pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590, which

was contrary to the Statutes. Learned senior counsel would further

argue that in SKUAST-K, one Masood Tabish was appointed as Artist-

cum-Photographer in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 vide order dated

26.04.2006, whereas the respondents herein were continued in the pay

scale of Rs. 3050-4590. Summing up his arguments, learned senior

counsel would submit that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the

controversy and has, by the judgment impugned, rendered justice to the

respondents.

6

9 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material on record, a few facts which are not in dispute need to be

noticed at the outset.

10 SKUAST was created under the Sher -e-Kashmir

Universities of Agricultural and Technological Sciences Act, 1982

[“the Act of 1982”]. Initially, there was only one University for the

entire erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, headquartered at

Srinagar. However, by Act No. VII of 1998, the Act of 1982 was

amended with effect from 20.09.1999 to pave the way for the creation

of two Agricultural Universities; one in the Kashmir Division and the

other in Jammu Division, each having jurisdiction over its respective

territorial division of the State.

11 The University in the Kashmir Division was named as

SKUAST-Kashmir (SKUAST-K), and the University in the Jammu

Division was named as SKUAST-Jammu (SKUAST-J). In terms of

Section 50-B of the Act of 1982, which we shall set out here-in-below,

all the Statutes and Regulations made under the Act of 1982 (un-

amended) and in force immediately before the commencement of the

Shere-i-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology

(Amendment) Act, 1998 [“the Amendment Act of 1998”] were

provided to remain in force in both the Universities, insofar as these

were not inconsistent with the provisions of the Amendment Act of

1998.

12 Section 50-B, which was inserted by the Amendment Act

of 1998, reads as under:

“50-B.Continuance of the existing Statutes and

Regulations:

7

All the Statutes and Regulations made under the Sher-i-

Kashmir Unviersity of Agricultural Sciences and

Technology Act, 1982 and in force immeidatley before the

commencement of the Sher-i-Kashmir University of

Agricultural Sciences and Technology (Amendment )Act,

1998 shall so far as may be consistent with the provisions

of this Act, continue to be in force in each University after

such commencement”.

13 At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to set out Section

40 of the Act of 1982, which lays down the procedure for making the

University statutes under Section 39. Section 40 reads as under:

“4. Statutes how made:

The Statutes under this Act shall be proposed by the

Board and submitted to the University Council for

approval. The Statutes, if approved, shall be submitted to

the Chancellor for his assent and shall be valid only after

the assent is received and notified by the Vice-

Chancellor”

14 From a plain reading of Section 40 (supra), it is evident

that the following steps are required to be undertaken before a Statute

under Section 39 of the Act of 1982 can be said to have been made:

(i) The Statute shall be proposed by the Board of

Management of the University;

(ii) It shall be submitted to the University Council for

approval;

(iii) If it is approved by the University Council, the same

shall be submitted to the Chancellor for his assent; and,

(iv) It shall be deemed to have been made only after it

receives the assent of the Chancellor and is notified by the

Vice-Chancellor.

15 A quick look on Section 39 of the Act of 1982, which

deals with the scope of Statutes, would indicate that matters such as

classification, qualification and manner of appointment, terms and

conditions of service, and duties of teachers, and other non-teaching

8

staff of the University, are to be governed by the Statutes made in terms

of Section 40 of the Act, reproduced hereinabove.

16 Having understood the relevant provisions of the Act of

1982, we now proceed to examine the case as was set up by the

respondents before the Tribunal.

17 Vide Notification No. 01 of 1994 dated 08.04.1994, the

Vice-Chancellor of SKUAST, as it existed prior to the Amendment Act

of 1998, notified additions/amendments to the SKUAST Statutes, 1983.

This notification was issued in compliance with the procedure laid

down in Section 40 of the Act of 1982 reproduced above.

18 Admittedly, as per the amendments carried out to the

Statutes in terms of Notification dated 08.04.1994, the post of Artist-

cum-Photographer carried the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. However,

upon the creation of SKUAST-Jammu, the then Vice-Chancellor, vide

University Order No. 106 of 2000 dated 15.06.2000, created, inter alia,

two posts of Photographer-cum-Artist in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-

4590. Although the power of the Vice-Chancellor to create the posts

with the approval of the Board of Management is not in dispute, yet an

argument was raised that the Vice-Chancellor could not have created

the posts in a pay scale lesser than the pay scale prescribed by the

University Statutes.

19 We find merit in the argument advanced by Mr. Abhinav

Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, for the

reason that any addition, modification, or amendment to the University

Statutes referable to Section 39 of the Act of 1982 can be made only by

9

following the procedure laid down in Section 40 of the Act, which we

have discussed hereinabove. We do not dispute the power of SKUAST-

J to amend its Statutes and, for valid reasons, prescribe a pay scale for a

post lesser than what was prescribed in the Statutes initially framed

under the Act of 1982, prior to its amendment in the year 1998. We

have already reproduced Section 50-B of the Act, which clearly

provides that the existing Statutes and Regulations, which were in

existence and were not in inconsistent with the provisions of the

Amendment Act of 1998, shall continue to remain in force in each

University until these are amended by following the procedure

prescribed under Section 40 of the Act of 1982. As a matter of fact, the

University itself has, in so many words, admitted this mistake having

been committed while issuing University Order dated 15.06.2000.

20 It also needs to be taken note of that similar mistake of

prescribing a lesser pay scale for the post of Artist-cum-Photographer,

than what was provided under the University Statutes, has not been

committed by the SKUAST-K.

21 Mr. Masood Tabish was appointed as Artist-cum-

Photographer with the mandate of performing similar and identical

duties in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 plus usual allowances by

SKUAST-K vide University Order dated 26.04.2000. Be that as it may,

we cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondents came to be

appointed pursuant to their selection made by the petitioners in terms of

Advertisement Notification No. 03 of 2001. The said Advertisement

Notification clearly prescribed the pay scale of the post of Artist-cum-

Photographer as Rs. 3050-4590. The pay scale indicated in the

10

notification was the same as prescribed by University Order No. 106 of

2000 (supra). Not only did the respondents accept their appointment in

the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590, but they also remained silent for almost

five years.

22 It appears that when it came to the notice of the

respondents that a similarly situated employee working as Artist-cum-

Photographer in SKUAST-K was receiving salary in the pay scale of

Rs. 5000-8000, it occurred to them to raise their grievance first before

their employer and thereafter by way of SWP No. 1009/2008 before

this Court. While SWP No. 1009/2008, seeking a direction to the

petitioner-University to grant them the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000, was

pending adjudication before a learned Single Judge of this Court, the

representation made by the respondents for similar relief came to be

deliberated upon in the 6

th

Finance Committee meeting of the

University. The Financial Advisor (Universities), vide his

communication dated 16.03.2016, conveyed his concurrence for

upgradation of the post of Artist-cum-Photographer. The matter was

then placed before the Board of Management of the University, which

also recommended the upgradation.Thereafter, the matter was placed

before the University Council in its 15th meeting, wherein the Council

approved the recommendations of the Board of Management and

placed the matter before the Chancellor for assent. Here again, the

procedure for making Statutes laid down in Section 40 of the Act of

1982 was followed and ultimately, after receiving the assent of the

Chancellor of the University, a formal notification was issued by the

Vice-Chancellor on 01.02.2017 revising the pay scale of the post of

11

Artist-cum-Photographer to Rs. 5000-8000 plus grade pay of Rs.4200

(pre-revised), now revised to Rs.9300-34800+GP 4200 with

prospective effect.

23 In view of the aforesaid development, it is a foregone

conclusion that the grievance raised by the respondents in their petition

before the Tribunal was genuine and was acknowledged as such by the

petitioners also. However, while granting them relief by revising the

pay scale of the post in question, the benefit was conferred upon the

respondents only with prospective effect, i.e., from the date of

upgradation of the post.

24 The Tribunal has considered the aforesaid aspect in its

right perspective and has rightly come to the conclusion that the post of

Artist-cum-Photographer could not have been notified for selection in

the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590, nor could the petitioners have created

the said post in a pay scale lesser than the one prescribed under the

University Statutes. For the detailed discussion made hereinabove, we

fully concur with the view taken by the Tribunal. However, one aspect

which has either escaped the attention of the Tribunal or has been

deliberately skipped to avoid a decision thereon is that, prior to the

filing of WPC No. 2153 (TA No. 204), the respondents had already

approached this Court by way of SWP No. 1009/2008 seeking similar

relief i.e, grant of the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 retrospectively w.e.f.

the date of their appointment. The said petition was dismissed as

withdrawn vide order dated 11.10.2018, with liberty granted to the

respondents to file a fresh petition only on a fresh cause of action.

Whether or not the subsequent petition has been filed on a fresh cause

12

of action was a question which was required to be addressed by the

Tribunal, but the same appears to have been skipped.

25 Prima facie, we find substance in the argument advanced

by Mr. Anil Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the

second writ petition filed on the same cause of action and seeking the

same relief was barred by the principle of res judicata. However, on a

careful reading of order dated 11.10.2018 passed in SWP

No. 1009/2008, it is evident that the said writ petition was dismissed as

withdrawn on the basis of a written application filed by the

respondents. In the said application, the respondents have very clearly

pleaded that their primary grievance regarding the upgradation of the

post in question has been redressed by issuance of Order dated

01.02.2017, whereby the post of Artist-cum-photographer has been

pgraded to the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 (pre-revised) and Rs. 9300–

34800+4200 (revised). However, the upgradation has been ordered

prospectively, thereby depriving the respondents of the legitimate

benefits accruing therefrom. It is specifically pleaded that the

respondents have been granted only partial relief and, therefore, they

would like to pursue the remaining relief by filing a fresh writ petition.

26 It appears that this Court, while allowing the application

and permitting the respondents to withdraw their writ petition,

restricted the liberty to file a fresh writ petition only on a fresh cause of

action. The operative part of the order dated 11.10.2018 deserves to be

noticed and is accordingly reproduced here-in-below:

“For the reasons assigned in the application, prima facie

grounds have been made out for indulgence of this Court

13

to allow the application and permit the petitioners to

withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh

one. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the writ

petition titled as ''Sat Paul and another Vs. Sher-e-

Kashntir University of Agricultural Sciences and

Technology and another'', bearing SWF No.1009/2008 is

dismissed as withdrawn along with connected lA if any,

with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition on

fresh cause of action, if same is permissible within the

parameters of law. Interim direction, if any, shall

stand vacated”

27 From a reading of order (supra), it clearly transpires that

this Court has allowed the application of the respondents and permitted

them to withdraw SWP No. 1009/2008 with liberty to file a fresh one.

However, inadvertently, the liberty to file a fresh petition has been

restricted to a fresh cause of action. Be that as it may, the issuance of

the University order dated 01.03.2017, upgrading the post in question

prospectively, constituted a cause of action that accrued during the

pendency of SWP No. 1009/2008. Therefore, two options were

available to the respondents: (i) to amend the pending writ petition, or

(ii) to file a fresh writ petition. The respondents chose the second

option.

28 Viewed from any angle, we do not find that the subsequent

petition filed by the respondents is hit by the principle of res judicata

or barred by the dismissal of the earlier writ petition as withdrawn with

liberty to file a fresh one only on a fresh cause of action. We, therefore,

overrule the argument advanced by Mr. Anil Khajuria on this aspect of

the matter.

29 Having found no infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal

returned on facts and law obtaining in the case, we are, however, of the

14

view that the respondents cannot be held entitled to arrears on account

of upgradation of the post in question from the date of their

appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem

Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, has held that in case of belated pension

petitions, relief relating to pay fixation or upgradation may be granted,

but the arrears payable thereunder should ordinarily be confined to a

period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition.

30 Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present

case, we are of the considered view that it would be in the fitness of

things, and also in consonance with law, that the arrears payable to the

respondents, upon holding that the post to which they were appointed

carried the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 (pre-revised) ab initio, shall be

restricted to three years prior to the filing of SWP No. 1009/2008.

30 In the above premises, this petition is disposed of by

providing as under:

(i) The posts of Artist-cum-Photographer shall be deemed to

have been created in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 (pre-

revised) and Rs.9300-34800+GP 4200 (revised) right from

the beginning;

(ii) The respondents shall be entitled to fixation of their pay in

the scale of Rs. 5000- 8000 (pre-revised) and Rs.9300-

34800+GP 4200 (revised) with effect from 21.04.2003, i.e.,

the date of their appointment.

(iii) They shall be entitled to all consequential benefits,

excluding arrears of salary for the period from the date of

their appointment till three years preceding the filing of SWP

No. 1009/2008.

(iv) The entire exercise shall be completed by the petitioners

within a period of three months from today, failing which the

entire arrears payable to the respondents shall carry interest at

15

the rate of 6% per annum, to be calculated from the date of

expiry of the aforesaid three-month’s period.

The judgment of the Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid

extent.

(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR )

JUDGE JUDGE

Jammu

11 .09.2025

Sanjeev

Whether the order is speaking: Yes

Whether the order is reportable:Yes