Saqib Rather
Srinagar, Feb 22: In a decisive administrative move, the Government of Jammu and
scales, effectively rejecting a series of long-standing claims by employees seeking
The clarification came through Government Order No. 55-JK (R&B) of 2026, issued by
the Public Works (R&B) Department, in connection with the case Rajeev Gupta &
Others vs State and Others. The petitioners, appointed as Draftsmen (Civil) in 2008
under the Jammu and Kashmir Engineering (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules,
1997, had demanded placement in a higher pay band dating back to their initial
appointment.
At the heart of the dispute was the demand for a revised pay scale of ₹5150–8300, with
petitioners citing parity and earlier judicial precedents. However, the government
maintained that appointments were made strictly under the pay structure applicable at
the time, which prescribed a scale of ₹4000–6000.
Reinforcing its stance, the administration emphasized that recruitment was governed by
clearly notified rules, including the pre-revised scale of ₹1200–2040, with eligibility for
advancement to ₹1600–2660 only after completing eight years of service. Any
retrospective alteration, the order noted, would amount to rewriting statutory provisions.
The government also relied on Rule 9-F of SRO 174 of 1992 (Pay Rules), asserting its
continued validity. In support of its position, it invoked key rulings of the Supreme Court
of India, including M.P. Ram Mohan Raja vs State of Tamil Nadu and State of Madhya
Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai, which underline that relief under Article 226 is discretionary
and cannot override established statutory rules.
`
Observers view the decision as part of a broader push by the administration to enforce
fiscal discipline and uphold rule-based governance. With increasing scrutiny on
governance in the Union Territory, the move signals a firm intent to avoid retrospective
financial liabilities on the public exchequer.
“Service conditions and pay structures are governed strictly by the rules in force at the
time of appointment. Any retrospective change would not only violate statutory
provisions but also create an unsustainable financial burden on the state,” a senior
official in the department said.
While the ruling may disappoint sections of employees, officials have framed it as a
necessary step to ensure administrative consistency and financial prudence. The order
is also expected to set a precedent, influencing similar claims pending across various
government departments.
In effect, the message is clear: service benefits will be determined by the rules in force
at the time of appointment, and retrospective upgrades are unlikely to receive
administrative approval.
