Disposed

Ut of J and K Th. Commissioner Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Jammu and Others v. Mohd Arif

J&K HC2 Sept 2026WP(C)/2752/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir disposed of a writ petition filed by the UT, challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that complied with the tribunal's directions on a suspension review, rendering the present petition infructuous.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ut of J and K Th. Commissioner Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Jammu and Others Vs Mohd Arif — J&K HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S. No. 110

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

WP(C) No. 2752/2026

¶4

UT of J&K and others

¶5

…. Petitioner/Appellant(s)

¶6

Through:Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG

V/s

Mohd Arif

…..Respondent(s)

Through:-

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER

¶13

02.09.2026

¶14

The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu, in OA No. 61/48/25 titled “ Mohd Arif vs. UT of J&K and others”. The respondent/applicant had approached the Tribunal for quashing of the Order No. CEJ/PMGSY/250 dated 30.12.2024 by virtue of which he was put under suspension, and also sought a direction to the respondents to reinstate him on the post as held by him prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 30.12.2024.

¶15

The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, disposed of the OA by directing as under:-

¶16

“Accordingly, the original application is disposed of with a direction to respondents to treat this OA as representation of the applicant and consider the case of the applicant for suspension review which was on the basis of wrong facts in FIR and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant by passing reasoned and speaking order”.

¶17

WP(C) No. 2752/2026

¶18

Page 2 of 2

¶19

The aforesaid directions were required to be complied with within a period of four weeks. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners-UT have filed the present writ petition

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the directions passed by the Tribunal have already been complied with and they have passed a detailed speaking order bearing Order No. CEJ/PMGSY/67 dated 26.03.2025.

¶21

In view of the fact that the order passed the Tribunal already stands complied with, nothing survives for consideration in the present petition. The writ petition has, therefore, been rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

Jammu: 02.09.2026 Shafqat

¶23

(Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge

Ut of J and K Th. Commissioner Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Jammu and Others v. Mohd Arif

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ut of J and K Th. Commissioner Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Jammu and Others v. Mohd Arif

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases