SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the promotion of a Sopore Municipal Council employee as Sanitary Supervisor with effect from April 28, 2005, along with all consequential service benefits, dismissing an appeal filed by the Jammu and Kashmir Government against an earlier Single Bench judgment.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajesh Sekhri dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 78/2024), holding that the employee’s promotion claim had to be considered under the rules applicable when his right to promotion accrued and not under the recruitment rules introduced in 2008.
In its judgment dated October 13, 2026, the Bench found no illegality or impropriety in the Single Bench order dated May 2, 2023, which had directed the authorities to treat Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh as substantively appointed and promoted as Sanitary Supervisor from April 28, 2005, with all consequential benefits.
The case originated in 1980 when Sheikh and another employee, Khazir Mohammad Shah, were engaged as daily wagers in the Municipal Committee, Sopore. Their services were regularised in 1988, and both were working as Sweepers. However, Shah was promoted as Jamadar/Sanitary Supervisor in 1994, while Sheikh, despite being similarly situated, was denied the same benefit.
Sheikh subsequently approached the High Court through SWP No. 1614/1995. On August 6, 1999, the court directed the authorities to consider his claim for the post of Jamadar/Sanitary Supervisor along with other eligible candidates, if any, from the date Shah was promoted, subject to the applicable rules.
However, instead of implementing the court’s direction, the Executive Officer of the then Town Area Committee, Sopore, in 2000, allowed Sheikh to work as Assistant Sanitary Jamadar in his existing pay and grade without any financial benefits. He was subsequently assigned the duties of Sanitary Supervisor in different beats of the town.
Sheikh again approached the High Court through SWP No. 567/2002, seeking the pay and grade attached to the post of Sanitary Supervisor from the date he had been made to perform its duties.
During the pendency of the petition, the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sopore, with the approval of the council’s president, issued an order on April 28, 2005, allowing him to work as Sanitary Supervisor instead of In-charge Sanitary Supervisor, with charge allowance. His case was also recommended to the Director, Urban Local Bodies, Kashmir, for upgradation of the post to the level of Sanitary Supervisor.
The writ petition was disposed of on December 10, 2009, with a direction to the Director, Local Bodies, Kashmir, to consider his case in accordance with the applicable rules and government orders.
However, the Director rejected his claim on February 16, 2013, holding that he did not possess the prescribed qualifications under the Jammu and Kashmir Urban Local Body Institutions (Management) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008.
Challenging the decision, Sheikh filed another writ petition, which was allowed by the Single Bench on May 2, 2023. The court set aside the rejection order and directed the authorities to treat him as substantively appointed and promoted as Sanitary Supervisor with effect from April 28, 2005, along with all consequential benefits.
The Single Bench also directed the authorities either to create a post of Sanitary Supervisor retrospectively from that date or identify a vacant or equivalent post against which he could be adjusted and issue a formal order.
The Jammu and Kashmir Government challenged the decision before the Division Bench, arguing that Sheikh had never been given independent charge of Sanitary Supervisor but had only been asked to assist the Jamadar concerned. It further contended that performing such duties did not confer any right to promotion or the pay scale attached to the higher post. His inclusion in the establishment budget’s list of In-charge Sanitary Supervisors, the government argued, did not automatically entitle him to substantive promotion.
After examining the record and hearing the parties, the Division Bench rejected the government’s arguments, observing that Sheikh had been performing the duties of Jamadar/Sanitary Supervisor since June 8, 2000, initially in his own pay and grade and subsequently, from April 28, 2005, with charge allowance.
The Bench acknowledged that, ordinarily, an employee is entitled only to the pay attached to the post to which he has been substantively appointed and that merely performing the duties of a higher post does not automatically confer a right to its pay scale.
However, it underlined an important exception to this general principle, observing, “when a person is formally ordered to hold the charge of the duties of a higher post, he is entitled to the pay scale attached to the said higher post.”
The court further noted that Sheikh’s right to promotion had accrued much before the introduction of the 2008 recruitment rules, initially in 1994 when his counterpart was promoted and his own claim was ignored, and subsequently in 2000 when he was assigned the duties of Sanitary Supervisor.
It held that the authorities should have examined his claim in the light of the rules applicable on April 28, 2005, when the Executive Officer, with the approval of the Municipal Council president, had allowed him to work as Sanitary Supervisor.
The Bench observed that the 2008 rules were introduced much later and were prospective in operation, adding that they could not be applied retrospectively to deny a right that had already accrued to the employee.
In a significant observation on the treatment of employees performing higher responsibilities, the court said, “Making an employee to perform higher level responsibilities while paying him lower salary amounts to work place exploitation, which is not countenanced in law.”
The judges also noted that the High Court’s earlier direction issued on August 6, 1999, had not been implemented in letter and spirit, forcing Sheikh to repeatedly approach the court for relief.
The Bench concluded that the Single Bench had correctly examined the matter in the context of the rules prevailing when the employee’s cause of action arose.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed along with all connected applications, and the Single Bench judgment was upheld.
The Union Territory was represented by Government Advocate Ilyas Nazir Laway, while advocate B A Zargar appeared for Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh.
