The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court allowed a long-pending Letters Patent Appeal filed by a group of direct recruit Sub-Inspectors of the Jammu and Kashmir Police appointed in 1979, sharply criticizing the repeated undermining of binding judicial decisions through subsequent litigation and administrative adjustments. The Division Bench restored the seniority and promotional benefits flowing from government orders issued in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment from 2007. The High Court observed that despite earlier victories before both the High Court and the Supreme Court, the appellants’ decades-long legal struggle had left them in a position no better than when they began their original litigation in 1986.
The appeal arose from writ petitions filed by direct recruit Deputy Superintendents of Police selected in 1995 and finalised in 1999. These officers had challenged a Government Order of 2008 and a consequential Government Order of 2010, which granted retrospective promotions and refixation of seniority to officers who entered service as direct recruit Sub-Inspectors in April 1979. The dispute’s genesis traced back to a police headquarters order issued in 1985, which granted pre-1979 Assistant Sub-Inspectors retrospective promotion as Sub-Inspectors with effect from April 25, 1978. This order placed those officers ahead of the 1979 direct recruits, enabling them to advance in promotion to higher ranks.
The appellants had initially challenged the 1985 order in 1986, ultimately succeeding before a writ court in 2004 and before the Supreme Court in 2007. However, subsequent administrative and judicial developments repeatedly neutralised the relief granted, effectively pushing the appellants below officers they had originally been declared senior to. The High Court remarked that the appellants “fought for justice, got justice and then lost justice,” reflecting the protracted and frustrating nature of the dispute spanning more than three decades.
Emphasizing the binding nature of judicial pronouncements, the Division Bench highlighted the Supreme Court’s 2007 judgment, which restored the appellants’ earlier victories and criticized the State for granting retrospective promotions. The High Court held that the 2008 Government Order, issued to implement the Supreme Court mandate, restored the appellants’ seniority from the rank of Sub-Inspector upwards and granted retrospective promotions as Inspectors, Deputy Superintendents of Police, and ultimately Superintendents of Police. The Court found that interfering with this order unsettled a controversy that had already attained finality and unfairly displaced the appellants through recurring reshuffling of seniority lists.
The Division Bench criticized the dilution of binding judicial decisions through continuous litigation and administrative adjustments. It noted that the Single Judge erred in setting aside the Government Orders of 2008 and 2010, which resulted in the appellants being placed below officers already declared junior to them. The Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal, restored the appellants’ seniority and promotions, and reaffirmed that judicial finality, particularly when pronounced by the Supreme Court, must be respected rather than undermined by repeated re-examination of conclusively decided matters.
The High Court’s judgment underscores the importance of adhering to judicial finality and the consistent application of binding orders, particularly in matters involving long-standing service rights. By restoring seniority and promotional benefits, the Court remedied the undoing of earlier judicial victories and emphasized that administrative and judicial actions must align with settled judicial mandates rather than weaken them through repetitive re-evaluation.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.