AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]
Before proceeding further, it is revealed from the record that the applicants have filed M.A. No. 1231/2026 seeking permission to file a joint application. For the reasons stated therein, the said M.A. is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are working as Patwaris in the Jal Shakti (Public Health Engineering) Department, Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, and have been discharging the duties of Revenue Clerks on in-charge basis for a considerable period. It is submitted that the applicants were initially engaged as contractual Patwaris during the years 2008-2009 and were subsequently regularized vide order dated 19.01.2017. It is further submitted that applicants Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 to 9 were assigned the temporary charge of Revenue Clerks vide order dated 15.06.2024, whereas applicants Nos. 6 and 7 were assigned similar charge vide order dated 27.03.2025, and they have since been discharging the duties of Revenue Clerks at their respective places of posting.
consistent practice of the Department for decades to promote Patwaris having three years’ continuous service to the post of Revenue Clerk in accordance with the Draft Recruitment Rules, notwithstanding that formal Recruitment Rules for the post of Revenue Clerk have not yet been notified. It is submitted that earlier promotion orders evidencing such practice have been placed on record. Learned counsel also refers to the departmental communications and subsequent promotion orders placed on record, which, according to him, demonstrate that such promotions have consistently been made by the Department.
It is submitted that vide communication dated 05.09.2026, the Member Secretary of the Departmental Promotion Committee forwarded the Agenda Note for the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee scheduled to be held on 10.09.2026. The said communication recorded that a Patwari having three years’ continuous service was the Directorate had been promoting Patwaris to the said post in accordance with the Draft Recruitment Rules for decades, and that regularization of the placement of the concerned officials, including the applicants, be carried out. It was also recorded that ten vacancies had arisen and the seniority list appended thereto included the applicants, who had already been assigned the duties of Revenue Clerks on in-charge basis.
Learned counsel submits that, instead of permitting the aforesaid proposal to be placed before and considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the scheduled date, respondent No.2, vide communication No. JSD-NGJ/3/2026(7716878) dated 09.09.2026, directed respondent No.3 to withdraw the proposal for regularization/confirmation of the applicants from consideration. It is submitted that the sole ground assigned was that the existing Recruitment Rules notified vide SRO 180 of 1997 do not prescribe the post of Revenue Clerk or consideration could be made only after approval/notification of the applicable Recruitment Rules for the post.
Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid ground does not take into account the consistent departmental practice of promoting Patwaris to the post of Revenue Clerk under the Draft Recruitment Rules for decades, which fact is itself recorded in the communication dated 05.09.2026. It is further submitted that the non-framing or non-notification of formal Recruitment Rules for the post, despite such longstanding departmental practice, cannot operate to the prejudice of the applicants, who have already rendered considerable periods of in-charge service and were included in the seniority list forwarded for consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
Learned counsel further submits that the impugned communication dated 09.09.2026 was issued without notice or opportunity of hearing to the applicants and Secretary, Departmental Promotion Committee, or the earlier departmental practice. It is also submitted that the applicants’ claim is supported by the cases of similarly situated employees who had earlier been considered for promotion to the post of Revenue Clerk under the same Draft Recruitment Rules.
Learned counsel accordingly submits that the impugned communication dated 09.09.2026, whereby the proposal concerning the applicants was withdrawn from consideration, is liable to be considered in accordance with law and that the applicants’ claim for regularization/confirmation as Revenue Clerks deserves to be examined in the light of the recommendation contained in the communication dated 05.09.2026, the consistent departmental practice, the applicable rules and the cases of similarly situated employees.
However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the interests of Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation and consider the applicants’ grievance regarding withdrawal of the proposal for their regularization/confirmation as Revenue Clerks vide communication dated 09.09.2026, including their claim for consideration in terms of the recommendation contained in the communication dated 05.09.2026, their eligibility on the basis of three years’ continuous service, their long period of in-charge service, the consistent departmental practice of promoting similarly situated Patwaris, and the cases of such similarly situated employees reflected in the documents placed at pages 45-50 and 55-59 of the Original Application, together with the documents annexed thereto, strictly in accordance with law and within a stipulated period.
Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on advance notice, submits that the present Original Application may be disposed of with Central Administrative Tribunalappropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.
Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused 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 on behalf of the applicants.
Accordingly, in view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the applicants, this Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the rival claims of the parties, deems it appropriate to dispose of the present Original Application with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation and accord due consideration to the applicants’ grievance regarding withdrawal of the proposal for their regularization/confirmation as Revenue Clerks vide communication dated 09.09.2026, including their claim for consideration in terms of the recommendation Central Administrative Tribunalcontained in the communication dated 05.09.2026, their eligibility on the basis of three years’ continuous service, their continued discharge of duties as Revenue Clerks on in-charge basis, the consistent departmental practice in respect of similarly situated Patwaris, and in light of the cases of similarly situated employees reflected in the documents placed at pages 45-50 and 55-59 of the Original Application, together with the documents annexed thereto, subject to the applicants’ eligibility and entitlement and strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations, provided there is no legal impediment in doing so.
The respondents shall associate the applicants with the aforesaid exercise and afford them an opportunity to place such further material or documents as they may wish to rely upon. The respondents shall thereafter pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within a period of three (03) weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon them. Till such decision is taken, the Central Administrative Tribunalrespondents shall not proceed to take any final decision in respect of the aforesaid claim of the applicants pursuant to the impugned communication dated 09.09.2026.
It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicants’ claim, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority while passing the aforesaid order.
With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room after due compliance.