If CAT Took Little Precaution To Determine Major Case Reasonably Than Miscellaneous Functions Time & Once more, Complete Controversy Would Come To Relaxation: J&Ok Excessive Courtroom

Ad Blocker Detected

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

The Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court recently rejected the practice of litigation lengthening by focusing on various requests filed by parties rather than deciding on the main issue.

“The entire controversy would have settled if the tribunal had taken a little precaution to decide the main case instead of repeatedly dealing with the various motions,” a bench was restricted by Supreme Judge Pankaj Mithal and Judge Sindhu Sharma referring to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu to watch.

The comments were made when a written petition filed by the UT Administration was made against the suspension of the Respondent’s Transfer Order, filed as Consultant Radiology, SMGS, Jammu.


The Respondent had received an injunction against the transfer on February 13, 2020 in WP (C) No. 436/2020. This petition was eventually forwarded to the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The Respondent then filed an application with the CAT for the implementation of the above-mentioned interim injunction of the High Court and preferred resolution WP (C) No. 1187/2020, which was issued on this application.

In the aforementioned written petition, an interim injunction was issued on July 20, 2020, in which the order of the tribunal of July 9, 2020 was maintained and the finance commissioner of the Department of Health and Medical Education was instructed to ensure that the petitioner carried out his duties in the SMGS hospital in Jammu perceives.

This written petition was subsequently rejected as withdrawn.

Respondent No. 1 submitted a number of other motions to the CAT, including the implementation of the interim injunction of the High Court of February 13, 2020 and the CAT.

There were differences of opinion between two members of the CAT in the processing of these applications. One was of the opinion that the Respondent was exonerated on 01/01/2020 and therefore the implementation of the interim injunction of the High Court is not necessary. The other member disagreed. So the matter was referred to the third member.

The third member of the CAT noted that the withdrawal of the following written petition on October 15, 2020 does not nullify the effect of the injunction issued therein on July 20, 2020. it was therefore aimed at the implementation of the decision of the High Court of February 13, 2020.

Later, in the likely failure of the High Court order to be implemented, the Tribunal ordered not to release the salaries of the Finance Commissioner, Department of Health and Medical Education, Government of Jammu and Kashmir until the next listing date.

The petitioners were affected by the above two CAT orders and preferred the immediate written petition.


The Bench Division found that the crux of the matter was the assessment of the validity of the remittance order, which was challenged in the first written petition in the High Court, which was later transferred to the CAT.

It found that while unnecessary time is spent just processing the various applications, the decision on the core remains. Such a practice was even rejected by the Supreme Court.

“We assume that the CAT will do its best to resolve the main petition as quickly as possible, if possible at the next date set in the event that we are informed by the parties that they have exchanged the pleadings contained therein to have.” added the bank.

With regard to the merits of the petition, the bank found that, in the absence of contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent, the suspension of the said finance commissioner’s salary is not at first sight legally justified. Accordingly, the contested order is suspended until further orders are placed.

AAG Aseem Sawhney appeared for the UT administration.

Senior Advocate Abhinav Sharma with Advocate Abhimanyu Sharma for the respondent.

Case Title: Union Territory of J & K & Ors. v. Arshad Bhat & Anr.

Click here to download the order

Read order