Pardeep Singh Bali vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors.

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)

The instant Writ Petition bearing SWP No. 2335/2013 was initially filed before the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in the year 2013 and was thereafter, transferred to this Tribunal vide Order dated 15.09.2020 and was numbered as T.A./2873/2021.

Through the medium of the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:

Petitioner and against the Respondents for quashing of the Impugned Order No. 284/Ng of 2013 Dated: 16-05-2013 contained in Annexure-B

The brief facts of the case are that vide Government Order No. 229-NG/2006 dated 29.01.2006, the applicant was appointed as Sanitary Inspector in the respondent Department against a post advertised for District Baramulla and, pursuant thereto, joined the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Baramulla. As stated, the applicant was appointed under the Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003, and continued on the said post thereafter. It is further averred that the applicant completed seven years of contractual service in January 2013.

It is averred in the T.A. that since the contractual rules of

2003 came to be repealed, the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, and the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2011, came to be enacted, providing for regularization of employees appointed on adhoc or contractual or consolidated basis upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions.

As stated, under the said scheme, the cases of all the eligible employees and those who had completed seven years of service were required to be processed for regularization, while employees who had not completed seven years were to be continued till completion of the requisite period. The applicant also relies upon the provision relating to relaxation of the upper age limit contained in Section 6 of the Act.

It is stated that, having completed seven years of service on 09.01.2013, the applicant was no longer to be treated as a contractual appointee under the repealed Rules in 2010, and his case was required to be processed for regularization in terms of the provisions. However, as stated, instead of considering his case for regularization in a timely manner, the respondents kept the

matter pending.

The short grievance as projected by the applicant in the instant O.A. is that, while his case for regularization was still pending consideration, respondent No. 2 issued a termination Order No. 284/NG of 2013 dated 16.05.2013, whereby his services were terminated by treating him as a contractual employee under the Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003, on the ground of absence from duty.

It is contended that the applicant was terminated without issuance of notice, conducting any enquiry or affording the applicant an opportunity of hearing and, therefore, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The applicant herein is aggrieved not only by the alleged inaction of the respondents in considering his case for regularization after completion of seven years of service, but also by the issuance of the impugned termination order and discontinuation of his services. The applicant has accordingly challenged the termination order dated 16.05.2013 and the consequential inaction of the respondents before this Tribunal, on the grounds as urged in the O.A.

Reply stands filed in the matter. The objections raised by the respondents are that the instant T.A. is not maintainable for the reason that as per the terms and conditions of the contractual appointment, it does not confer any right upon the petitioner to claim appointment on regular basis or preference in the matter of selection. Further, the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from the duty w.e.f. 13.03.2013, and was arrested in connection with an FIR No. 51/2013 registered by Police Parimpora u/S 19 UL Act on 16.03.2013, and the preventive detention of the petitioner, though the same was stayed by the Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner has no right to seek re-appointment or reinstatement into the service. It is added that the petitioner does not exist on the rolls of the department from the date his contractual appointment stood cancelled. In view of the above, as stated, the petitioner is neither entitled to reinstatement nor regularization under J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 or J&K Civil Services Special Provisions (Amendment) Ordinance, 2011. It is contended that the petitioner was on contractual engagement, as such, there was no need to hold any enquiry into the matter, that

too when the engagement was temporary, conferring no right or claim upon him to seek permanent absorption. In view of the submissions made, the respondents sought dismissal of the instant Writ Petition.

Perusal of the file reveals that the Hon’ble High Court of J&K admitted the case to hearing on 25.11.2014. Thereafter, no effective hearing is held in the case. Vide order dated 12.12.2025, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Syed Musaib, DAG, was directed to confirm whether the post on which the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis has been filled up as on date or not by the Service Selection Committee. To this effect, he has submitted on an affidavit that upon examination of the relevant records, it came to fore that the post of Sanitary Inspector on which the petitioner was initially engaged on contractual basis, stood filled up on substantive basis w.e.f. 16.04.2018. It is submitted that the vide Order No. 373/NG of 2018 dated 16.04.2018, the post of Sanitary Inspector was filled up after appointment of one Shri Sameer Ahmad Khan, S/o Ghulam Qadir Khan, R/o Suigui, Dangerpora, Baramulla, on the recommendations

of the J&K Services Selection Board, and this confirmed that the post in question is no longer vacant as on date. The affidavit is signed by one Dr. Syed Idrees-ul-Mukhtar, Block Medical Officer, Tangmarg.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Faizan Majid Bhat, submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the FIR No. 51/2013 by the competent Court of Sub-Judge designated under NIA in the case titled as State through P/S Parimpora v. Mohd. Zubair Bhat & Ors., wherein the petitioner was accused no. 4, vide judgment dated 07.12.2021.

Mr. Faizan Majid Bhat while submitting his arguments has referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh in the case titled as Feroz Ahmad Sheikh & Ors. v. U. T. of J&K & Ors. passed in WP(C) No. 2260/2022 decided on 16.12.2023, wherein their lordships while relying upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and in somehow similar facts and circumstances, have held that even in case of contractual appointee, principles of natural justice required to be followed particularly when the order of termination being stigmatic, as

such, submits that the order impugned be quashed. He further submits that even if the order impugned was to be issued, the same necessitated the enquiry in consonance with the rules of natural justice and the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Apex Court on the subject. Reliance has also been laid upon the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case titled as Tapan Kumar Das v. State of Orissa & Ors. and also on the judgments of the Kerela High Court in the case titled as Tintu K. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Syed Musaib, learned DAG, representing the respondents, however, submits that since the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis, there was no need for any enquiry and the order impugned has been rightly issued.

We are not impressed with the arguments of Mr. Syed Musaib, DAG, that for a contractual employee, no rules or procedure are required to be followed before disengaging him/her. It is rather a settled position of law that even in the case of contractual employee, the rules of natural justice are to be followed to the hilt. To this effect, we are fortified by a judgment

of the Orissa High Court in the case titled as Bachitrananda Barik v. State of Orissa & Ors. passed in WP(C) No. 10146/2018.

We are also fortified, in our view, by a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand AIR 1965 SC 1767 wherein their lordships have held that rule of law demands that the power to determine question effecting rights of citizens would impose the limitation that the power should be exercised in conformity with the principles of natural justice and the respondents were legally bound to afford an opportunity of being heard to the applicant before disengaging him.

Ordinarily, the impugned order having been passed in violation to the rules of natural justice and without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and, that too being stigmatic, cannot withstand the test of law, coupled with the case law cited at Bar. As such, the same deserved to be quashed. However, since the petition has been pending before the Hon’ble High Court and thereafter before this Court, and the contractual post on which the applicant was working having been already filled

up in terms of the affidavit filed by the respondents dated 11.02.2026, we are not inclined to pass an order of quashing the impugned order, as the same would not serve any purpose. It is apt to mention here that when the instant petition was filed, as shown in the index of petition, the petitioner was 43 years old and by now the petitioner is around 56 years old.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the affidavit along with the reply filed by the respondents, and the case law cited at Bar.

The T.A. is accordingly disposed of by providing that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents shall explore the possibility of engaging the petitioner on any stop-gap arrangement in any scheme of the respondent department, where at least the petitioner can be given some honorarium, so that he can make his both ends meet; however, subject to his eligibility. The said direction has been passed keeping in view that the petitioner has been litigating for the last 13 years and having been acquitted by the competent Court where the petitioner was facing trial. It is made clear that the orders have been passed in the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be construed as a binding precedent in other similar cases.

Accordingly, T.A. No. 2873/2021 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.