Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Rajiv Sharma vs School Education Department on 7 April, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 34/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 34/2025
Reserved on: - 24.09.2025
Pronounced on: - 07.04.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. Rajiv Sharma Age 33 years S/o Sh Pritam Dass R/o Dager Tehsil
Kharah Bali District Jammu
2. Vijay Lakshmi Age 44 years D/o Sh Mulakh Raj W/o Kuldeep Kumar
R/o Rabta Tehsil Bhalwal District Jammu (Petitioners)
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. Nirmal Kotwal)
Versus
1. State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary School Education
Department J&K Govt. Civil Secretariat Jammu /Srinagar
2. Director School Education Muthi Jammu
3. Chief Education Officer, Jammu..
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, AAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 34/2025
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The SWP No.2594/2018 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No 34/2025 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that keeping in view the above submissions and those to be urged at the time of hearing the writ petition may very kindly be allowed by issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accord the benefit of regularisation to the petitioners with retrospective effect from the date the petitioners have completed their 07 years service as Laboratory Assistants on contractual basis immediately after the appointed date in- terms of section 10 of 2010 of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special provisions) Act 2010 with all consequential benefits. Any other writ, order or direction whatever the Hon'ble Court HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 3 :: TA 34/2025 may deem fit under the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -
a) The present Transfer Application has its origin in SWP No. 2594/2018 which was initially filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and, upon transfer, came to be registered as T.A. No. 34/2025 before this Tribunal.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant them the benefit of regularization with retrospective effect from the date they completed seven years of service as contractual Laboratory Assistants in terms of Section 10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 along with all consequential benefits.
b) Petitioner No. 1 was selected and appointed as a Laboratory Assistant in the School Education Department on contractual basis vide order dated 08.08.2006 and was posted in Higher Secondary School Dori Dager. He joined the duties pursuant to HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA 34/2025 the appointment order and continuously discharged his functions to the satisfaction of the authorities. Similarly, Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Laboratory Assistant on contractual basis vide order dated 07.10.2006 and was adjusted in Higher Secondary School Rabta. Both appointments were made after approval of the Administrative Department and the Director School Education, Jammu. Since their joining, both petitioners claim to have rendered uninterrupted and satisfactory service.
c) Subsequently, the respondents scrutinised the service records of the petitioners and, after being satisfied about their eligibility and performance, forwarded their cases to the Empowered Committee constituted under Section 10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 for consideration of regularisation. Upon recommendations of the Empowered Committee, the Government issued Order No. 522- Edu of 2015 dated 15.10.2015 whereby the services of the petitioners, along with several other similarly situated contractual Laboratory Assistants, were regularised. However, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 34/2025 the regularisation was granted prospectively from the date of issuance of the said Government Order and not from the date of completion of seven years of contractual service.
d) Aggrieved by the grant of prospective regularisation, the petitioners submitted a representation through proper channel in March 2017 seeking retrospective regularisation from the date they had completed seven years of service, in accordance with the provisions of the Special Provisions Act, 2010. Despite submission of the representation and receipt thereof by the competent authorities, no decision was communicated to the petitioners.
e) The petitioners further pleaded that certain similarly situated contractual employees had approached the Hon'ble High Court at Srinagar and obtained favourable orders directing the authorities to grant the benefit of regularisation from the appointed date around September 2010 with consequential benefits. Relying upon the said judgment as well as the Full Bench judgment on the subject of regularisation, the petitioners asserted that they were entitled to similar treatment and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 34/2025 retrospective regularisation from the date of completion of seven years of service. In the absence of any alternative efficacious remedy, the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, leading to the present proceedings after transfer of the case to this Tribunal.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents raised preliminary objections contending that no legal, fundamental or statutory right of the petitioners had been violated and that the Transfer Application was not maintainable either on facts or in law. It was further asserted that the petitioners had suffered no prejudice on account of the action of the respondents and, therefore, lacked locus standi to challenge the orders of regularisation. According to the respondents, no cause of action had accrued to the petitioners warranting interference by this Tribunal.
b) On merits, the respondents admitted that the petitioners had initially been engaged as contractual Laboratory Assistants and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 34/2025 were subsequently regularised vide Government Order dated 15.10.2015. However, it was emphasised that such regularisation was granted prospectively in accordance with the policy and statutory framework governing contractual appointments and regularisation. In the case of Petitioner No. 2, relaxation of a short deficiency in service period was granted, yet the regularisation was still effected prospectively.
c) The respondents contended that Section 10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 does not confer an automatic right of regularisation upon completion of a specified period of contractual service. Regularisation, according to the respondents, is subject to fulfilment of various conditions including availability of sanctioned posts, assessment of suitability and performance, and administrative exigencies. It was further argued that the terms of engagement of the petitioners clearly stipulated the contractual nature of their appointment and did not envisage automatic regularisation after completion of any particular period.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 8 :: TA 34/2025
d) The respondents also opposed the claim for retrospective
regularisation on the ground that such relief would lead to administrative and financial complications and would run contrary to established principles of service jurisprudence. They maintained that the statutory provisions, particularly Para 5(v) of the Act of 2010, clearly stipulate that regularisation of eligible contractual or ad hoc appointees shall take effect only from the date of regularisation irrespective of completion of seven years of service prior thereto. Consequently, the petitioners having already availed the benefit of regularisation under the Act were not entitled to any further relief including back-dated regularisation or consequential monetary benefits.
e) It was thus prayed that the Transfer Application be dismissed as being devoid of merit, both on legal and factual grounds.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application has arisen out of SWP No. 2594/2018 which stood transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 34/2025 HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 34/2025 before this Tribunal. The applicants have prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant them the benefit of regularisation with retrospective effect from the date they completed seven years of service as Laboratory Assistants on contractual basis, in terms of Section 10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, along with all consequential benefits. The record shows that applicant No. 1 came to be appointed as contractual Laboratory Assistant vide order dated 08.08.2006 and applicant No. 2 vide order dated 07.10.2006. Both were allowed to join and continued in service. Their cases were thereafter processed by the department, their records were verified, and their names were forwarded to the Empowered Committee constituted under Section 10 of the Act of 2010. On the recommendation of the Empowered Committee, Government Order dated 15.10.2015 came to be issued regularising their services, but such regularisation was granted only prospectively from the date of issuance of the order. The applicants thereafter submitted a representation in March 2017 claiming that the regularisation ought to have been given effect from the date they completed seven years of service, but the same was not considered.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 10 :: TA 34/2025
They have also specifically pleaded that similarly situated persons had already been granted such benefit in terms of judgment dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in SWP No. 2147/2017 and connected matters, following the principle laid down in Rabia Shah.
7. The stand of the respondents is that though the applicants were regularised vide Government Order dated 15.10.2015, they are not entitled to claim retrospective regularisation as a matter of right. According to the respondents, contractual appointment does not carry any promise of automatic regularisation, and Para 5(v) of the Act of 2010 provides that regularisation shall have effect only from the date of such regularisation irrespective of the fact that the appointee had completed seven years of service earlier. It is further pleaded that grant of retrospective regularisation would be contrary to the statutory framework and service law principles.
8. The foundational facts are not in dispute. The appointment of the applicants on contractual basis is admitted. Their continuation in service is admitted. Their eligibility having been scrutinised by the department and their names having been forwarded to the Empowered HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 34/2025 Committee is also borne out from the pleadings. Most importantly, their eventual regularisation under the Act of 2010 vide Government Order dated 15.10.2015 is also admitted. Therefore, the only question that falls for consideration is not whether the applicants were entitled to regularisation, because that issue already stands concluded in their favour by the Government itself, but from which date such regularisation ought to operate.
9. This issue, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal, is no longer res integra. The applicants have specifically pleaded that similarly situated contractual appointees under the very same enactment approached the Hon'ble High Court at Srinagar and the Hon'ble High Court, by judgment dated 11.07.2018, directed the respondents to modify the orders of regularisation and grant the benefit from the appointed day, i.e. around 26/27.09.2010, while following the principle laid down in the Division Bench judgment in Ms. Rabia Shah v. State & Ors. The applicants have further pleaded that the case is also covered by the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble High Court holding that the effective date of regularisation would be the date when the incumbents completed seven years of service and that HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 34/2025 arrears would also follow. These pleadings have not been specifically rebutted by showing that the applicants stand on any different footing from those who had already secured such relief. On the contrary, the respondents have admitted that the applicants were regularised under the same statutory scheme and on the recommendation of the same mechanism contemplated under Section 10 of the Act. Once the issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble High Court in relation to similarly situated employees, judicial discipline as well as equality in public law require that the same treatment be extended to the present applicants as well.
10. The objection of the respondents founded upon Para 5(v) of the Act cannot come to their rescue in the peculiar facts of the present case. The Tribunal is not called upon to interpret the provision in the abstract for the first time. The matter already stands covered by the law declared by the Hon'ble High Court in the judgments relied upon by the applicants. Once the superior constitutional court has already read and applied the statutory framework and directed that benefit be granted from the date of completion of the requisite service or from the appointed date, the respondents cannot continue to deny the same HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 34/2025 benefit to another set of identically situated employees by merely reiterating the bare language of Para 5(v). Administrative authorities are bound not only by the statute but also by the interpretation placed upon it by the competent court. A plea contrary to binding precedent cannot be accepted.
11. There is another aspect of the matter. The respondents themselves found the applicants fit for regularisation. Their service records were verified. Their performance and eligibility were accepted. Their names were forwarded by the department. Their cases were recommended by the Empowered Committee. Thus, all conditions which the respondents now vaguely refer to in their reply stood satisfied in the case of the applicants. Once that be so, the denial of retrospective effect becomes wholly arbitrary, especially when others similarly placed have already been granted that very benefit in terms of judicial orders. The State cannot adopt one standard for one group of employees and another for the rest, when both derive their claim from the same source, namely the same statute, the same nature of appointment, and the same process of regularisation. Such unequal treatment offends the mandate of fairness and non-arbitrariness.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 14 :: TA 34/2025
12. The respondents have also pleaded that retrospective regularisation would create administrative and financial complications. Such a submission deserves outright rejection. Financial burden is not a defence to deny a lawful service benefit, more so when the right claimed by the applicants already stands recognised in favour of similarly situated persons by the Hon'ble High Court. If the law entitles an employee to a particular date of regularisation, administrative convenience cannot defeat that right. The State is expected to act as a model employer, not as a litigant searching for technical grounds to deny parity. The applicants had approached the authorities through representation as far back as in March 2017, but the same was not considered. They were thus compelled to pursue litigation for a relief which, in view of the existing law on the subject, ought to have been granted by the respondents on their own.
13. The argument that contractual engagement did not contemplate automatic regularisation also does not advance the respondents' case. The applicants are not claiming regularisation dehors the statute. They are claiming regularisation under the Act of 2010, under which they have already in fact been regularised. Their dispute is confined to the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 34/2025 effective date. Therefore, general propositions about contractual appointments and absence of automatic regularisation are wholly misplaced in the present matter. Once regularisation has already been granted under the statutory scheme, the residual controversy has to be resolved only in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court as to the date from which the benefit should flow. On that issue, as noticed above, the applicants are clearly entitled to succeed.
14. This Tribunal is therefore of the considered view that the present case deserves to be allowed. The applicants have been able to show that they were appointed on contractual basis in 2006, that they continued in service, that they were found eligible by the department and the Empowered Committee, that they were regularised under the Act of 2010 in 2015, and that similarly situated persons have already been granted the benefit of retrospective regularisation by the Hon'ble High Court. The respondents, on the other hand, have failed to demonstrate any distinguishing feature which would justify denial of the same relief to the applicants. Once parity is established and the legal position stands settled by the Hon'ble High Court, the respondents are duty bound to extend the same benefit to the present applicants.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 16 :: TA 34/2025
15. Accordingly, the Transfer Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of regularisation to the applicants from the date each of them completed seven years of continuous contractual service as Laboratory Assistant. In consequence, the Government Order dated 15.10.2015, to the extent it grants regularisation only prospectively, shall stand modified in respect of the applicants. The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits flowing from such retrospective regularisation, including refixation of seniority, pay and all other attendant benefits. The monetary arrears, if any, arising out of such exercise shall also be worked out and released in favour of the applicants. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon them. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV