Ravinder Kumar Handoo vs Union Territory Of J And K (Jkbose) on 31 July, 2026

    0
    7
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

    Ravinder Kumar Handoo vs Union Territory Of J And K (Jkbose) on 31 July, 2026

    Author: Sanjay Dhar

    Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                                        Page |1
    
                                                                         Sr. No. 12
    
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT SRINAGAR
    
                        WP(C) 2467/2025 CM(6541/2025)
    RAVINDER KUMAR HANDOO                                ...Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)
    
    Through:     Mr. Mir Manzoor, Advocate.
    
                                         Vs.
    UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (JKBOSE)                            ...Respondent(s)
    AND ANR
    Through:     Ms. Sana Imam, Advocate.
                 Ms. Najma Hamid, Advocate.
    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
                                    ORDER
    

    31-07-2026

    1. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has

    SPONSORED

    challenged Order No. 255-B of 2025 dated 29.07.2025 passed by the

    respondents, whereby his representation for grant of second in-situ

    promotion has been rejected.

    2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

    3. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was initially

    engaged as a Coolie on consolidated wages with the Respondent-Board.

    Later on, his services came to be regularized as Orderly (now Multi-Tasking

    Staff) in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2660-60-3200 in terms of Order No.

    887-B of 2006 dated 28.11.2006.

    4. The petitioner was granted first in-situ promotion under the Higher

    Standard Pay Scale Scheme in terms of Order No. 132-B of 2014 dated

    25.02.2014 with effect from 01.03.2012. However, the benefit of second in-

    situ promotion was not extended in favour of the petitioner after completion
    Page |2

    of six years of service in the previous grade. This prompted the petitioner to

    file the writ petition, being WP (C) No. 1677/2022, before this Court.

    5. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of Order

    dated 06.06.2025 directing the Respondent-Board to consider the claim of

    the petitioner for grant of second in-situ promotion in accordance with the

    Rules. However, when the Respondent-Board considered the claim of the

    petitioner, it was rejected in terms of impugned Order dated 29.07.2025

    6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds

    that, under the Higher Standard Pay Scale Scheme, an employee is entitled

    to time-bound promotion on completion of 7, 15 and 24 years of service to

    avoid stagnation, but in the present case, the Respondent-Board has given

    in-situ promotion to the petitioner only once and has denied him second in-

    situ promotion. It has been submitted that the impugned action of the

    respondents is violative of statutory rules and that the same is arbitrary and

    illegal. It has further been submitted that the respondents are misinterpreting

    the provisions of in situ promotion scheme issued vide order No. 252-B of

    2001, which governs the field.

    7. The respondents have contested the writ petition by pleading that

    petitioner, being a matriculate, is eligible for promotion to the post of Junior

    Assistant against the internal quota of 33% reserved for in-service

    matriculate Class IV employees of the Board having aggregate service of

    five years and ability to register a typing speed of 24 words per minute in

    terms of the norms notified vide Order No. 330-B of 1989 dated 21.08.1989.

    8. It has been submitted that the petitioner was provided an opportunity

    for submitting himself to the test for his promotion to the post of Junior
    Page |3

    Assistant twice, in the years 2018 and 2022, but he did not avail these

    opportunities by remaining absent on both occasions.

    9. According to respondents, a matriculate MTS is entitled to only one

    in-situ promotion, and there is no provision for grant of second in-situ

    promotion in the said category of employees as per the scheme of Higher

    Standard Pay Scale notified under Order No. 252-B of 2001 dated

    26.04.2001.

    10. Respondent-J&K State Board of School Education is an autonomous

    body governed by its own rules and regulations. It is only those rules and

    regulations applicable to the Government Employees of the Union Territory

    of Jammu and Kashmir that are adopted by the Respondent-Board which

    can be made applicable to the service conditions of its employees. Unless

    and until any scheme, including the scheme relating to grant of Higher

    Standard Pay Scales, is adopted by the respondent Board, the same would

    not be applicable to its employees. The Board would also be within its

    powers to adopt any scheme applicable to the employees of government of

    UT of J&K to its employees, with appropriate modifications. Thus, the

    scheme relating to grant of Higher Standard Pay Scales applicable to

    employees of the Government of Union Territory of J&K is not applicable

    to the employees of Respondent-Board.

    11. With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let us now notice the

    scheme relating to Higher Standard Pay Scales notified by the Respondent-

    Board in terms of Order No. 252-B of 2001 dated 26.04.2001. It will be

    profitable to refer to the relevant clauses of the scheme viz. 5(e) and 5(f).

    The same are reproduced as under:

    Page |4

    e. Literate Orderlies and Daftaries (who are otherwise eligible for
    rotation to the posts of Junior Assistants subject to availability of
    posts as per norms prescribed by the board for such promotions)
    be placed in the next higher standard pay scale (Selection Scale)
    under this scheme after completion of (06) six years consistently
    qualifying satisfactory services in the orderlies or Daftaries cadre
    as the case may be.

    f. Illiterate and under Matric orderlies who have no chance of
    further promotion be placed in the next higher standard pay scale
    (Selection Scale) under this scheme after completion of (07) seven
    years consistently qualifying satisfactory service in their initial
    appointment scale viz. Rs. 2550-3200.

    However, to remove their further stagnation and make
    further promotional avenue for them, they shall be placed in the
    Grade I and Grade II scales of R. 3060-4590 and R. 4000-6000
    respectively after completion of (08) eight and (09) nine years
    consistently qualifying satisfactory service in higher standard pay
    scale and Grace Ist scale respectively.

    12. From a perusal of the aforesaid clauses, it is clear that literate

    orderlies who are otherwise eligible for promotion to the post of Junior

    Assistant are to be placed in the next higher standard pay scales under the

    scheme after completion of 6 years, whereas, in the case of illiterate and

    under-matriculate orderlies, there is a provision for placing them in next

    higher standard pay scale after completion of seven years and in second and

    third higher standard pay scales after completion of eight and nine years’

    service in the higher standard pay scales and Grade-I scale, respectively.

    13. Thus, there is a clear distinction provided in the norms with regard to

    placement in higher pay scales, so far as literate and illiterate MTS staff is

    concerned. While literate MTS staff is entitled to only one in-situ

    promotion, whereafter they are entitled to functional promotion to the post
    Page |5

    of Junior Assistant, but in the case of illiterate orderlies, there is a provision

    for three in-situ promotions. There appears a rationale in this distinction,

    inasmuch as a literate orderly has the avenue of career progression in the

    shape of functional promotions to higher posts like Junior Assistant,

    whereas, in the case of under-matriculate orderlies there are no such

    avenues available. Therefore, to avoid stagnation of under matric orderlies

    provision for more than one in-situ promotion has been made under the

    Scheme notified by the Respondent-Board.

    14. In the instant case, the petitioner is admittedly a matriculate MTS

    staff eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. According to the

    respondents, he was provided two opportunities to participate in the

    selection process for the post of Junior Assistant, but he declined to

    participate. Therefore, he cannot have any grievance with the impugned

    action of the respondents in refusing to grant of second or third in-situ

    promotion because the norms and rules governing the field do not provide

    for the same.

    15. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with

    the impugned order passed by the Respondent-Board. The writ petition

    lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

    (SANJAY DHAR)
    JUDGE

    SRINAGAR
    31-07-2026
    Junaid



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here