AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)
The applicants, 02 (two) in number, have filed the instant O.A. Since the cause of action and reliefs claimed by all the applicants are identical, the M.A. for joint application under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, is allowed.
Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicants seek the following reliefs:
a. Allow the present Original Application and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants for grant of retrospective regularization from the respective dates of acquiring statutory eligibility under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Mohammad Syed Parrey & Ors., dated 04.12.2024, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in UT of Jamти and Kashmir v. Neeru Pandita, LPA No. 70/2022, decided on 11.08.2026, and in light of the order dated 06- 03-2026 passed by this Hon'ble Court in a similar Transfer Application bearing T.A No. 262/2022 M.A No. 723/2025 titled Waqas Wadoo and Ors Versus State (now U.T) of J&K and Ors, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, in the interest of justice.
b. Direct the respondents to re-fix the dates of regularization of the applicants accordingly, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, including the law laid down regarding the effective date of regularization under the aforesaid Act.
c. Direct the respondents to grant all consequential service benefits flowing from such retrospective regularization, including re-fixation of pay, seniority and other admissible service benefits, in accordance with the applicable rules and law.
d. Direct the respondents to release the consequential monetary benefits, including arrears, admissible to the applicants upon such re-fixation, within a time-bound period as may be prescribed by this Hon'ble Tribunal; and
e. Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the applicants and against the respondents.
The short facts of the case are that the applicants are working as Medical Officers in the Health and Medical Education Department, J&K, and were initially appointed as Assistant Surgeons on an ad hoc/contractual basis against clear vacancies. The applicant no. 1, namely, Firdous Ahmad Vaid, was appointed on 05.10.2000 and regularized on 20.01.2012, whereas the applicant no. 2, Aaliya Ali Padroo, was appointed on 08.09.2006 and regularized on 18.09.2015 under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010.
It is contended in the O.A. that under Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, contractual appointees are entitled to regularization upon completion of seven years of service. They submit that the delay in issuing formal regularization orders was attributable to the respondents and that they should not be deprived of the benefit of regularization from the date of acquiring the said eligibility.
Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, in the case titled as Dr. Muneeb Iqbal v. U. T. of J&K & Ors. (WP(C) No. 551/2021), the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as State of J&K v. Mohammad Syed Parrey & Ors., decided on 04.12.2024, as also the Full Bench judgment in U. T. of Jammu and Kashmir v. Neeru Pandita (LPA No. 70/2022), dated 11.08.2026.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that similarly situated employees have been granted the benefit of retrospective regularization, whereas the applicants’ claims have been denied on the ground that they were not parties to the earlier litigation. Being aggrieved thereby, they have filed the present O.A. seeking retrospective regularization from the respective dates of acquiring eligibility, along with consequential service and monetary benefits.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that she would be satisfied, if the instant O.A. is disposed of at the threshold.
Heard.
At the request of learned counsel for the applicants, the O.A. is taken up for its disposal.
Having regard to the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the case, the O.A. is disposed of by providing that the respondents shall treat this O.A. as a representation, who shall consider and decide the case of the applicants, strictly in accordance with the import of the judgments mentioned hereinabove, provided that their case is squarely covered by the said judgments and there is no legal impediment in according such consideration to them. The needful shall be done by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of 06 (six) weeks from the date a certified copy of this Order is served upon the respondents. It is made clear that the respondents shall decide the case of the applicants, in accordance with law, keeping in view the eligibility/entitlements of the applicants.
Accordingly, O.A. No. 1190/2026 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.