AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Before proceeding further, it is revealed from the record that the applicants have filed MA No. 995/2026 seeking permission to institute a joint Original Application. For the reasons stated therein, the said Miscellaneous Application is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are highly qualified Settlement Assistants serving in the Revenue Department of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir for more than seventeen years. They were engaged pursuant to Cabinet Decision No. 155/10 dated 23.09.2005 and Government Order No. 259-Rev(S) of 2005 dated 29.09.2005 on consolidated remuneration, initially fixed at ₹2,000 per month and subsequently enhanced to ₹4,500 per month. It is submitted that the aforesaid Government Order specifically provided that eligible Settlement Assistants possessing the prescribed qualifications for the post of Patwari would be imparted Patwari training.
Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. DIP/J-163 dated 10.04.2008, applications were invited and the applicants, after undergoing the prescribed selection process, were appointed as Settlement Assistants in the year 2008.
It is contended that the applicants possessed the requisite qualifications for appointment as Patwaris and were assured that eligible Settlement Assistants would be provided formal Patwari training and, upon completion of such training, would be considered for regular appointment as Patwaris. However, while similarly situated Settlement Assistants were deputed for Patwari training and subsequently regularized as Patwaris, the applicants were denied such opportunity despite fulfilling the requisite conditions.
Learned counsel submits that despite not being formally trained as Patwaris, the applicants have continuously discharged duties and functions attached to the post of Patwari, including maintenance and updation of revenue records, girdawari, field inspections, demarcation proceedings, attestation work and other allied revenue functions. It is submitted that the respondents have utilized the services of the applicants for performing Patwari-related duties for several years, while denying them the corresponding designation, pay scale, regular status and other service benefits attached to the said post.
Learned counsel further submits that the respondents themselves acknowledged the need for regularization of Settlement Assistants through communication dated 17.07.2014 regarding creation of new administrative units, wherein modalities for their absorption and regularization were proposed to be formulated. Subsequently, vide communication dated 08.08.2014, the applicants were posted in newly created administrative units for performing duties relating to Patwari work. However, despite continuously performing such duties, the applicants continued to remain designated as Settlement Assistants and were deprived of the benefits attached to the post of Patwari.
**07.**It is further submitted that the applicants submitted various representations seeking regularization and grant of Patwari benefits, but their claims were not considered in an effective manner. Learned counsel states that similarly situated Settlement Assistants appointed through the same recruitment process approached the Hon'ble High Court in SWP No. 1462/2017 and SWP No. 3001/2015, resulting in directions for consideration of their claims and their subsequent regularization as Patwaris vide Government Order dated 30.11.2017 and Government Order No. 13-JK (Rev) of 2026 dated 27.04.2026. It is contended that despite being similarly situated, the applicants have been denied the same benefit.
**08.**Learned counsel submits that the action of the respondents in retaining the applicants as Settlement Assistants while continuously assigning them duties attached to the post of Patwari is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed upon the principles of equal pay for equal work, parity amongst similarly situated employees, fair consideration for service benefits and legitimate expectation, as recognized by various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Learned counsel further submits that the assurance of Patwari training and subsequent regularization, the uninterrupted service rendered by the applicants for more than seventeen years, and the conduct of the respondents have created a legitimate expectation in their favour for appointment as Patwaris. It is also submitted that the applicants challenge the stipulation contained in Government Order No. 13-JK (Rev) of 2026 providing that the benefit granted therein shall not operate as a precedent for future cases, as the same allegedly denies equal treatment to similarly situated employees.
On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the applicants seek directions for their regularization/appointment as Patwaris, grant of consequential service and monetary benefits, including pay scale, seniority and arrears, parity with similarly situated Settlement Assistants who have already been regularized, and such other relief as this Tribunal may deem appropriate.
However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicants 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 claims and assertions raised therein, along with the documents annexed thereto, particularly in light of Cabinet Decision No. 155/10 dated 23.09.2005 and the treatment accorded to similarly situated persons, strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period.
Mr. Rais-ud-Din Ganaie, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicants, submits that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.
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 view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending, particularly in view of the limited prayer now made by learned counsel for the applicants.
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 same as a representation and consider the claims and assertions made therein, together with the documents annexed thereto, particularly the provisions contained in Cabinet Decision No. 155/10 dated 23.09.2005 and the applicants' claim of parity with similarly situated persons, by passing a detailed, reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and the law governing the field, subject to the applicants' eligibility and entitlement and provided there is no legal impediment in doing so.
The respondents shall pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
The Registry shall consign the file to the Record Room after due compliance.