JAMMU, October 16, 2026 – In a significant ruling safeguarding employees’ rights, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has declared that compelling an employee to discharge the responsibilities of a higher post while paying them a lower salary amounts to “workplace exploitation” and is impermissible in law.
The observations were made by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajesh Sekhri. The Bench was hearing an appeal filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir administration, which sought to challenge a previous Single Bench judgment that had granted substantive promotion and consequential benefits to a Municipal Council Sopore employee.
The case centered around Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh, who was initially engaged as a daily wager in the Municipal Committee Sopore in 1980 and had his services regularized in 1988. The court noted a glaring disparity: while a similarly situated colleague of Sheikh was promoted as Jamadar/Sanitary Supervisor in 1994, Sheikh was denied the same treatment.
Despite approaching the High Court in 1999, which directed the authorities to consider his claim for promotion, the order was not implemented in letter and spirit. Sheikh had been performing the duties of Jamadar/Sanitary Supervisor since June 2000, initially in his own pay and grade, and later with a charge allowance from April 28, 2005. Even though the Executive Officer of Municipal Council Sopore recommended upgrading his post, the Director of Urban Local Bodies rejected the claim, citing the subsequently introduced J&K Urban Local Body Institutions (Management) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008.
On May 2, 2023, a Single Bench ruled in Sheikh’s favor, declaring that he should be deemed substantively appointed and promoted as Sanitary Supervisor from April 28, 2005, with all consequential financial benefits. The UT administration challenged this, arguing that merely performing the duties of a higher post did not automatically confer the right to a substantive promotion or its corresponding pay scale.
Dismissing the government’s appeal (LPA No. 78/2024), the Division Bench rejected this contention. The Bench observed that while ordinarily an employee cannot claim the pay scale of a higher post just by performing its duties, an exception clearly exists when an employee has been formally ordered to discharge those specific responsibilities.
“Making an employee to perform higher level responsibilities while paying him lower salary amounts to workplace exploitation, which is not countenanced in law,” the Division Bench firmly stated.
The court further ruled that Sheikh’s promotional rights had accrued well before the 2008 Recruitment Rules came into force. Therefore, his claim had to be considered under the legal framework applicable in April 2005, rather than retrospectively applying rules introduced later. Finding no illegality in the Single Bench’s decision, the Division Bench upheld the directions granting Sheikh his long-overdue promotion and benefits.
Published by True Roots Media Network