Ghulam Nabi Mir vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors.

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

The case of the applicant as projected in the O.A. is that the applicant was engaged as a Daily Wager on daily wage basis from 31.07.1985 in the Irrigation and Flood Control Division, Handwara, vide Order No. 1360 dated 31.07.1985; and the applicant was entitled to regularization in terms of SRO 64, being eligible as per Rule 4.

Accordingly, the respondents considered the services of the applicant in terms of SRO 64 and, vide Government Order No. 167-PW of 1995, issued on 28.03.1995, however, the services of the applicant were regularized against the post of a Helper. It is pertinent to mention that the order was given effect from 01.04.1994 in terms of sub-clause IV of the order.

It is stated in the O.A. that the respondents were required to frame the seniority list of the Helpers of the Handwara Division, for further promotion to higher posts/grades as per the Recruitment Rules. The respondents prepared the seniority list, however, the applicant's name was dropped from the seniority list. Thus, the applicant was constrained to approach the respondents for necessary corrections in the seniority list.

It is further pleaded by the applicant that in terms of Letter No. 5316-18 dated 25.01.2012, issued by the Executive Engineer, respondent No. 4, the necessary correction was recommended, while assessing the appropriate seniority position to respondent No. 3. It was against this backdrop, that the Circle Level Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting was held on 26.05.2008, and cleared about 30 Helpers for promotion as Mates and Works Supervisors in the pay scale of 3050-4590 and formal orders to this effect were issued on 10.10.2008. According to the applicant his name was dropped illegally and unauthorizedly from the seniority list, without due consideration of the relevant record. It is further submitted by the applicant that the list submitted by respondent No. 4 does not show the name of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in terms of the Recruitment Rules, the promotion to higher posts or grades was to be made on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC, therefore, no such departmental committee was constituted, much less were any recommendation made by it. No cases for promotion to the post of Works Supervisor against the post of the said rank referred to by respondent No. 4, were placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee. Learned counsel further submits that, for some ulterior reasons, respondent No. 4 proceed to issue orders of promotion of his own, without seeking recommendations from the Departmental Promotion Committee, in favour of junior Helpers, who were shown at Serial Nos. 5 and 6 in the seniority list, namely, Gulzar Ahmad Teeli and Irshad Ahmad Khoja, leaving the applicant in the lurch, who was also shown at Serial No. 3 in the seniority position.

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the juniors of the applicant were given another promotion to the higher grade of 2400-4210, despite their ineligibility under the applicable rules. It is contended that upon restoration of applicant’s seniority, he too became entitled to such promotion with consequential placement ahead of his junior Helpers. Hence, the present Original Application.

Through the medium of the instant petition the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs-

Learned counsel for the applicant argued the matter at length and submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if the present O.A. is treated as a representation and the respondents are directed to consider and decide the same within a stipulated time frame, in light of the averments made therein, along with the documents annexed and the law applicable in the instant case.

Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Furkan Yaqub Sofi vice Mr. Rais ud din Ganaie, DAG, submits that, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, the respondents have no objection if the present O.A. is treated as a representation and is disposed of in terms of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present O.A. may be disposed of at this stage by treating the same as a representation.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present O.A. is disposed of with a direction to respondents to treat this O.A. as representation and to accord due consideration to the assertions as well as the claim of the applicant made therein, in light of the law holding the field and subject to the entitlement and eligibility of the applicant, as well as other applicable conditions and rules and regulations. Further, if there is no impediment. Respondents shall also take into consideration the documents annexed with the O.A. while according such consideration.

The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a comprehensive reasoned, speaking, and detailed order.

It is clarified that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims or contentions raised by either side. All questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, O.A. No. 977/2026 is disposed of along with the connected M.As., if any, parties are to bear their own costs.

Consign the file to the Record Room, after due compliance.