Srinagar, August 8, KDC: Spanning over three decades, two High Courts, and more than a dozen petitions, a marathon legal battle waged by a dismissed Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) employee has drawn to a close, with the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissing his latest plea after ruling that earlier judgments have attained absolute finality.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rajesh Sekhri dismissed an application (CM No. 682/2025 in LPASW No. 177/2009) filed by Sudesh Kumar Gargotra against the Director General of ITBP, Vikram Srivastav, and others, bringing temporary quietude to one of the most intricate procedural sagas in local service jurisprudence.
The applicant, who appeared in person, had sought the re-listing of his long-dismissed Letters Patent Appeal (LPASW No. 177/2009) alongside an interlocutory application (CMP No. D-267/2009), claiming that a review petition had been allowed in his favor as far back as March 2011.
However, perusing the 15-year-old record, the Division Bench noted that the applicant had misinterpreted a routine order taking documents on record as an order allowing his review petition. The Bench said that his main appeal was dismissed in July 2011 and a subsequent review petition was rejected in November 2013, making his current plea legally unmaintainable.
The origins of the dispute trace back 33 years to March 20, 1993, when the applicant was dismissed from service by ITBP authorities. He challenged his termination in SWP No. 557/1993 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, where a Single Judge initially directed him to participate in the departmental inquiry.
On appeal in LPA No. 31/1994, a Division Bench remanded the matter for fresh consideration on merits, following which the MP High Court quashed his dismissal, leading to his reinstatement with the intervening period treated as on duty.
On October 12, 1995, ITBP passed a fresh, reasoned order dismissing him once again. Gargotra challenged this in Writ Petition No. 928/1996 before the MP High Court, which placed the matter before the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration, resulting in his dismissal being converted to compulsory retirement on January 1, 1998.
Shifting jurisdictions, Gargotra challenged the compulsory retirement order before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in SWP No. 850/2000. A Single Judge allowed his petition on October 11, 2002, but on appeal in LPA(SW) No. 96/2003, a Division Bench set aside the order on February 12, 2008, holding that merely residing in Jammu did not confer territorial jurisdiction.
In Rev(LPA) No. 03/2008, a Division Bench clarified that the jurisdiction ruling would not stand in the way of approaching the appropriate forum. Gargotra then moved AP(SWP) No. 4/2008 before a Single Judge for re-hearing of contempt proceedings, which was dismissed on April 23, 2009, and a subsequent review petition, Rev(S) No. 10/2009, was rejected as not maintainable on October 31, 2009.
Challenging the review dismissal, he filed LPASW No. 177/2009, during which his interlocutory application CMP No. D-267/2009 to place review documents on record was allowed on March 4, 2011. The main appeal was dismissed on July 30, 2011, and a review petition, Review(LPA) No. 09/2011, was subsequently dismissed on November 27, 2013, with liberty to challenge orders regarding his pension.
Examining the applicant’s latest attempt to reopen the 2009 appeal through CM No. 682/2025, Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rajesh Sekhri pointed out the fundamental flaw in his premise, observing that as is evident from the order dated March 4, 2011, only CMP No. D-267/2009 was allowed and documents were taken on record, making it ununderstandable how the applicant could assert that the review petition came to be allowed.
Dismissing the application as devoid of merit, the Division Bench ruled that both the July 2011 dismissal order and the November 2013 review dismissal had attained absolute legal finality. However, keeping a narrow legal window open for his pension grievances, the Division Bench directed that his pending writ petition, SWP No. 1035/2014, be listed before a Single Judge on August 17, 2026, for further proceedings.
Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) Vishal Sharma appeared with Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Eishan Dadhichi for the respondents, while the applicant appeared in person. (KDC)
