Kumar Sourabh Magotra v. U T of J and K Th Commissiioner Secretary Housing and Urban Dev and Others

ORDER

01.09.2026

¶1The petitioner, through the medium of the instant petition, has sought the following reliefs: "i) Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents, more particularly respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to release with-held salary in favour of the petitioner, which has been withheld since July, 2022, till date, purportedly for the reason that the Service Book of the petitioner is not complete, and to release the salary of the petitioner in future as well on month to month basis notwithstanding the fact, that the official respondents have not completed the Service Book of the petitioner;

ii) Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents more particularly respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 to prepared and update the Service Book of the petitioner, with direction to verify all the entries in the service book of the petitioner."

¶2Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned GA appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that he has already filed a detailed response, wherein the respondents have taken a specific stand that the petitioner has been receiving salary beyond July, 2022, which is evident from a bare perusal of the pay slips which have been placed on record along with the reply filed on behalf of the official respondents. The respondents, while filing the reply affidavit, have also placed on record the latest pay slips for the Sr. No. 35

WP (C) No. 1900/2022

month of April, 2025, vindicating the stand that the salary is being paid to the petitioner regularly and uninterruptedly.

¶3Insofar as the relief sought by the petitioner with regard to update the Service Book of the petitioner is concerned, the respondents have taken a specific stand that the original Service Book of the petitioner is in possession of the petitioner himself, which, till date, has not been made available to the Municipal Committee for verification and completion of the necessary service record. It is further submits that as and when the same is made available by the petitioner, the needful shall be done in accordance with law.

¶4Thus, in the light of the stand taken by the respondents, which has not been denied by the petitioner, no fruitful purpose would be serve to keep the instant petition alive, as the grievance projected in the instant petition stand redressed. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of, as the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed, along with all connected applications.

¶5The reply affidavit, which had been filed by the respondents way back on

23.07.2026, was not available in the digital file. A copy of the same has been furnished to this Court, which is taken on record.

¶6The writ petition, in the aforesaid backdrop, is disposed of along with all connected application(s).

(Wasim Sadiq Nargal) Judge Jammu

01.09.2026 Nikhil

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 1900/2022 Kumar Sourabh Magotra …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Aditya Manhas, Advocate Vs U.T. of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE