SUNIL MISRI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners through the medium of instant petition seek quashing of communication bearing No. APD/Acctts/Rep/18/2018 dated 11.12.2018 between Director Finance Agriculture Production/Floriculture Department and Director Floriculture, Jammu/Kashmir whereby the Director Finance Agriculture Production Floriculture Department has categorically stated that the petitioners are not covered by the judgment/order passed in Jawahar Lal Raina and others V. State of J&K and others and its benefit cannot be extended to such officers (petitioners herein), who are not petitioners in the said writ petition. They further sought direction to the respondents to grant benefit of the judgment titled Jawahar Lal Raina and others V. State of J&K and others passed on 31.08.2017 in SWP No. 1791/2006 in their favour because the petitioners are also similarly situated as the issue involved being similar in respect of both the issues with respect to grant of increments as well as wrongful recovery made by the authorities.

(2.) It is contended that this Court has already come to the rescue of the similarly situated and circumstanced persons vide its judgment titled " Jawahar Lal Raina and others v. State of J&K and others passed on 31.08.2017 in SWP No. 1791/2006 in which it was held that the Finance Department has fallen in error by depriving the benefit of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1992 even to those officers who had joined service prior to coming into force of these rules, but, acquired the higher qualification after that, and the said writ petition was allowed by this Court by quashing communication Nos. Agri-e-104/04-Gnl dated 30.03.2005 and O.M.No.A/9(81)1-888 dated 28.07.2006 and the respondents were also restrained from withdrawing the benefit of advance increment(s) given to the petitioners therein in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1992. It is contended that the Government has already implemented the aforesaid judgment vide its order dated 129-Agri of 2018 dated 16.05.2018 in the Agriculture Production Department. Hence, this petition on the grounds that the petitioners are also similarly situated and entitled to be given the same benefits as has been given to the similarly situated persons in terms of the order passed in SWP No.1791/2006 titled Jawahar Lal Raina and others v. State of J&K and others.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment dated 31.08.2017 passed in SWP No.1791/2006 titled Jawahar Lal Raina and others v. State of J&K and others , and being similarly situated the petitioners also approached the respondents by way of representation(s), but, the said representation(s) has been rejected by the respondents vide communication dated 11.12.2018 on the grounds that it has been approved that the implementation of the orders/judgment/relief is not available to such officers (petitioners herein), who are not covered by the judgment passed in SWP No.1791/2006 titled Jawahar Lal Raina and others v. State of J&K and others , as they were not petitioners in the said writ petition, and, accordingly, the request of the petitioner for grant of benefit in terms of the aforesaid judgment has been rejected. The petitioners challenged the said communication by way of present writ petition on the grounds taken in it.