Sayar Ahmad Laway vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors.

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

The Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a serving employee of the Rural Development Department, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Central Administrative Tribunal^{presently posted in District Kulgam, and is reflected in the} departmental record as “Mali”, pursuant to the correction made by the competent authority.

Learned counsel further submits that the applicant, along with seventeen other similarly situated employees, was constrained to approach this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 872/2024 titled Sayyar Ahmed Laway & Ors. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., seeking appropriate relief in respect of their service status, re-designation and consequential benefits. It is submitted that, upon failure of the respondents to fully implement the directions passed by this Tribunal, the applicants were constrained to initiate Contempt Petition No. 60/2025 before this Tribunal.

It is submitted that, during the course of the contempt proceedings, the competent authority considered the cases of the eighteen applicant-petitioners and issued a detailed and speaking order bearing Order No. 213-DRDK of 2026 dated 20.04.2026, issued by the Directorate of Rural Central Administrative Tribunal^{Development, Kashmir. The said order was passed in the} context of compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal in Contempt Petition No. 60/2025 arising out of O.A. No. 872/2024.

Learned counsel submits that, by virtue of the aforesaid order, sanction was accorded for re-designation of the eighteen employees in the manner reflected against their respective names in the tabulated statement forming part of the order, with effect from 27.02.2014, and they were subsequently re-designated as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) with effect from 29.03.2022 in terms of S.O. No. 133 dated 29.03.2022.

It is further submitted that the applicant, namely, Sayyar Ahmed Laway, figured at Serial No. 1 in the tabulated statement appended to Order No. 213-DRDK of 2026 dated 20.04.2026. However, due to an inadvertent typographical error, his designation was mentioned as “Orderly”, whereas his correct designation was “Mali”. The said error was subsequently noticed and corrected by Central Administrative Tribunal^{the competent authority by issuance of a Corrigendum} dated 04.08.2026, whereby it was specifically directed that “Mali” be read against the name of the applicant in place of “Orderly”. The applicant submits that the issuance of the said Corrigendum has removed the aforesaid nomenclature error and that his case is required to be considered on the basis of the corrected official record.

Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has learnt that certain employees who were similarly situated and were re-designated pursuant to the same order/proceedings have already been considered and promoted to the higher Executive cadre/post of Panchayat Secretary, whereas the applicant has not been accorded similar consideration. It is submitted that the applicant is similarly situated in all material respects and that there is no lawful basis for subjecting him to differential treatment.

It is submitted that the applicant seeks consideration of his Central Administrative Tribunal^{case for promotion in accordance with SRO 178 of 2007,} the Jammu and Kashmir Rural Development (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2007, and the applicable promotional schedule. Learned counsel, however, fairly submits that the applicant does not seek any automatic or direct promotion dehors the applicable rules, but only seeks lawful, fair and non-discriminatory consideration of his case by the competent Departmental Promotion Committee, subject to his eligibility, seniority, availability of vacancy and other relevant parameters governing promotion.

Learned counsel submits that the applicant accordingly submitted a detailed representation dated 07.08.2026 before the Assistant Commissioner Panchayat, Kulgam, requesting consideration of his case before the Departmental Promotion Committee and seeking the same treatment as had been extended to his similarly situated counterparts. The said representation was forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner Panchayat, Kulgam, to the Central Administrative Tribunal^{Assistant Commissioner Development, Kulgam, vide} communication dated 17.08.2026 for examination and further necessary action.

It is further submitted that, despite the aforesaid representation and its forwarding to the concerned departmental authority, no effective decision has been communicated to the applicant. The applicant thereafter submitted another representation dated 22.08.2026 specifically requesting that his case be considered before the forthcoming Departmental Promotion Committee.

Learned counsel submits that the respondents have neither rejected the applicant's claim by a reasoned order nor pointed out any statutory disqualification, lack of eligibility or other lawful impediment which would justify exclusion of the applicant from consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is, therefore, contended that failure to consider the applicant's case, particularly when similarly situated employees are stated to have been considered and promoted, is arbitrary and Central Administrative Tribunal^{violative of the principles of equality in public} employment.

It is further submitted that the Corrigendum dated 04.08.2026 merely corrects an inadvertent typographical error in Order No. 213-DRDK of 2026 dated 20.04.2026 and does not constitute a fresh appointment or re-designation. According to the applicant, the respondents cannot deny consideration of his case on the basis of an error which has already been officially corrected by the competent authority.

Learned counsel submits that the applicant has exhausted the available departmental remedy by submitting the aforesaid representations and, having received no effective response, has been constrained to approach this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

However, after making submissions for some time, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the present Original Central Administrative Tribunal^{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, along with the documents annexed thereto, strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

Mr. Satinder Singh, learned AAG, appearing pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicant, 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, in view of the limited prayer now made by learned counsel for the applicant, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending for adjudication on merits.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the Central Administrative Tribunal^{merits of the controversy, the present Original Application} is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation of the applicant and consider the claims raised therein, together with the documents annexed thereto, including Order No. 213-DRDK of 2026 dated 20.04.2026, Corrigendum dated 04.08.2026 and the representations submitted by the applicant, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and law governing the field.

The competent authority shall examine the applicant's claim objectively with reference to the relevant service record, applicable Recruitment Rules, eligibility, seniority, availability of promotional vacancies and all other relevant factors governing consideration for promotion. The competent authority shall also examine the applicant's claim for consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee vis-à-vis the similarly situated employees referred to by him, strictly in accordance with law.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{19.Upon such consideration, the competent authority 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 and communicate the decision so taken to the applicant forthwith thereafter.

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by the applicant. The respondents shall be at liberty to examine the applicant's eligibility, seniority, suitability, vacancy position and all other relevant aspects in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules. The present order shall not be construed as a direction to grant promotion to the applicant or as conferring upon him any right to promotion dehors the rules.

With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Consequently, all connected Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{23.Registry shall consign the file to the Record Room after} due compliance.