Farida vs Union Territory Of J&K & Ors.

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant retired from service on superannuation on 31.08.2012 while working as In-charge Headmaster, Government High School, Kawarhama, Tangmarg, Baramulla. It is submitted that the applicant was initially appointed as a Teacher on 10.03.1975 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Master vide Order No. 213 of 1996 dated 01.08.1996. Thereafter, she was placed as In-charge Headmaster in her own pay and grade, along with charge allowance, vide Order No. 571 of 2008 dated 04.04.2008, conveyed through the Chief Education Officer, Baramulla, and continued to discharge the duties of the said post until her retirement on 31.08.2012.

Learned counsel further submits that, pursuant to Government Order No. 743-GAD of 2007 dated 28.06.2007, which provides for the determination of the effective date of promotion of Government employees formally placed in charge of higher posts, the respondents undertook an exercise for regularization of In-charge Headmasters. In this regard, a large number of officials were regularized vide Government Order No. 205-JK(Edu) of 2023 dated 08.07.2023, against vacancies available during the relevant period. However, the applicant was left out of the said exercise despite having served as In-charge Headmaster for more than four years before her retirement. It is further submitted that, in a subsequent exercise, 24 retired In-charge Headmasters Central Administrative Tribunal^{were regularized vide Government Order No. 227-}JK(Edu) of 2025 dated 10.03.2025, in compliance with the judgment dated 28.07.2015 passed in Mohammad Sidiq Lone v. State of J&K & Others.

Learned counsel submits that the applicant has been pursuing her claim for regularization through representations, but her grievance has remained unresolved. It is further submitted that the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1309/2025, titled Farida Akhtar v. UT of J&K & Others, which was disposed of on 12.11.2025 with a direction to the respondents to treat the O.A. as a representation and consider her grievance in accordance with law and the applicable Government orders. However, according to learned counsel, the applicant's grievance has not been redressed despite the aforesaid directions.

Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have since issued Government Order No. 385-JK(Edu) of 2026 dated 21.09.2026, constituting a Committee to undertake a Central Administrative Tribunal^{one-time comprehensive reconciliation and verification} exercise in respect of retired In-charge Headmasters who claim to have been left out or excluded from the regularization process. The Committee has been tasked with examining such cases and making case-wise recommendations, including the reasons for exclusion or non-regularization. The applicant, therefore, seeks a direction to the respondents to place her case before the said Committee for consideration of her claim for regularization as Headmaster with effect from 04.04.2008, or from the date admissible under the applicable rules and Government orders, together with consequential service and pensionary benefits, including revision of her pension and release of the admissible arrears.

However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the ends of justice would be adequately served if a direction is issued to the respondents to treat the present Original Application as a representation and consider the applicant's claims for Central Administrative Tribunal^{retrospective regularization as Headmaster, consequential} service and monetary benefits up to the date of her retirement, and re-fixation of pension with consequential pensionary benefits and arrears, together with the documents annexed thereto, in the light of Government Order No. 385-JK(Edu) of 2026 dated 21.09.2026, strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

Mr. Satinder Singh, learned AAG, appearing pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending, particularly in view of the limited prayer made Central Administrative Tribunal^{on behalf of the applicant.}

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the Original Application as a representation and consider the applicant's claims for retrospective regularization as Headmaster, consequential service and monetary benefits up to her retirement on 31.08.2012, and re-fixation of pension with consequential pensionary benefits and arrears, together with the documents annexed thereto, in the light of Government Order No. 385-JK(Edu) of 2026 dated 21.09.2026 and strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations, government orders and the law governing the field, subject to the applicant fulfilling the requisite eligibility and entitlement and there being no legal impediment in doing so.

The respondents shall pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within a period of ten weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon them.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{11.It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any} opinion on the merits of the claims raised by the applicant, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority.

With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Registry shall consign the file to the Record Room after due compliance.