Anita Devi v. State of J&K & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 0202. The subject matter of the writ petition at all relevant point of times was cognizable by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, the writ petition came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 13.02.2017 thereby upsetting the promotion…
- Para 0505. Accordingly, the subject matter of the present writ petition is cognizable by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench and the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the context of remand of the case is fully applicable for the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench.…
Judgment
Through: Mr. L. K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate. Vs State of J&K and Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ramesh Arora, Sr. AAG for R-1 to 3. Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Veenu Gupta, Advocate for R-4. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER 26.07.2023
This is a 2006 writ petition through which the petitioner sought quashment of the promotion of the respondent no. 4 as Supervisor at ICDS Centre Bani, tehsil Basohli effectuated vide an Order no. 481/DSWJ of 2006 dated 04.01.2006 passed by the Director, Social Welfare Department, Jammu.
The subject matter of the writ petition at all relevant point of times was cognizable by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, the writ petition came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 13.02.2017 thereby upsetting the promotion of the respondent no. 4. 2 SWP No. 1057/2006 CM No. 7734/2022
The respondent no. 4 came to prefer a Letters Patent Appeal LPASW no. 41/2017 which after pendency of an almost more than 3 years came to be adjudicated by the Hon’ble Division Bench in terms of its judgment dated 03.08.2021 setting-aside the judgment dated 13.02.2017 and remanded the matter back to the writ-court for decision afresh after due consideration of the factual aspect as noted by the Hon’ble Division Bench in its judgment.
During the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019 came into picture which resulted in some constitutional changes one of that being that the service related cases to be taken cognizance of and to be heard by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) set up for Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Accordingly, the subject matter of the present writ petition is cognizable by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench and the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the context of remand of the case is fully applicable for the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench. Therefore, in the light of Circular no. G.S.R. 267(E) dated 29th April 2020 read with Circular no. G.S.R. 317(E) dated 28th May 2020, this Court deems this case to be cognizable by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench and, accordingly, order its transfer.
The Registrar Judicial, Jammu to transmit the record of the writ petition to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench. Parties to 3 SWP No. 1057/2006 CM No. 7734/2022 the writ petition to appear before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench on 21.08.2023.
Considering the fact that the matter in issue is of 2006, as such, the cause of justice in the case cannot brook any further delay, as such, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench shall be under a mandate to hear and dispose of the petition within a period of six months with effect from 21.08.2023 without any fail except for just reasons and that too by seeking extension of time in this regard from this Court.
The Registrar Judicial, Jammu to ensure timely transmission of the record to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench. Jammu 26.07.2023 Bunty (Rahul Bharti) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, on 29 Apr 2020. The bench was RAHUL BHARTI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.