HC upholds execution of interim salary order against Srinagar school, cautions judges on AI-generated citations

07/06/2026

SRINAGAR, Jun 6: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld an order directing execution of an interim salary payment order in favour of a school employee and imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on a Srinagar-based private school for repeatedly resisting compliance with judicial directions.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed a petition filed by the Principal of Woodland House School and two academic supervisors challenging an order of the 4th Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, which had directed implementation of an earlier interim order requiring payment of 50 per cent salary to respondent Shakeel Ahmad Malik. The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by Malik seeking recognition as a supervisor and release of salary. During the pendency of the suit, the trial court had, on June 14, 2022, directed the school to pay 50 per cent of his salary from April 2021 till May 11, 2022, subject to an undertaking that the amount would be refunded if he ultimately failed in the suit. The order was subsequently upheld by the appellate court and later by the High Court.
Senior Advocate Anil Bhan, assisted by Advocates Danish Majeed Dar and Moneesa Manzoor, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the interim order could not be executed like a decree and that the only remedy available for alleged non-compliance was under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court held that Section 36 of the CPC expressly extends provisions relating to execution of decrees to execution of orders and that interim orders are capable of enforcement through execution proceedings. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents to hold that the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A is supplemental and not exclusive.
The court observed that the petitioners had consistently resisted compliance with judicial directions despite suffering concurrent findings before multiple forums and said the present petition appeared to be another attempt to delay implementation of a binding order.
Holding the petition to be devoid of merit, Justice Nargal upheld the execution order dated October 15, 2025, directed the petitioners to comply with the salary payment order and allowed the executing court to adopt all permissible measures in law in case of further non-compliance. The court also imposed costs of Rs 25,000 to be deposited within two weeks.
In a significant postscript, the High Court expressed concern over incorrect and unverifiable judicial citations found in the trial court order and cautioned judicial officers against relying on unverified material generated through artificial intelligence platforms.
The court directed that any citation, precedent, extract or proposition of law obtained through AI-based tools must be independently verified from authentic sources before being incorporated into judicial orders. It further said every precedent relied upon should carry a complete and accurate citation and, wherever practicable, relevant extracts should be reproduced verbatim rather than paraphrased.
Justice Nargal directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated among all judicial officers in the Union Territory for information and compliance.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty