Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Mohd Zaffer vs Higher Education Department on 5 February, 2026
:: 1 :: OA 1466/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 1466/2023
Reserved on: - 20.11.2025
Pronounced on: -05.02.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
1. Mohd. Zaffer Aged 40 years S/o Kabir Hussain Khan, R/o Gohlad
Tehsil Mendhar District Poonch.
Pinocde: 185111.
2. Akseer Gulshan, Age 36 S/o Ghulam Mohd, R/o Chandak haveli,
District Tehsil Poonch. Pincode: 185101.
3. Mohd Taj, Age 45 Years S/o Mohd Yousif, R/o Surankote, District
Poonch.
Pincode: 185121
4. Amjad Islam, Age 37 years, S/o Mohd Asslam, R/o Shahdhara
Sharief Tehsil, Thannamandi.
Pincode: 185212
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: OA 1466/2023
5. Javeed Ahmad Dar, age 44 years s/o Gh.Mohi Ud Din dar, R/o
Zoohama chadoora. (budgam). A/P Muthi, Jammu.
Pincode: 181202.
6. Yash Paul, Age 43 Years S/o Mukhtiar Chand, R/o R/o Village
Arnoha, Post Office Katli, Tehsil Dinga Amb, Distt Kathua. Pincode:
184144.
7. Mohd Maqbool Dar, Age 48 Years S/o Mohd Subhan Dar, R/o
Larow, Kakapora Pulwama A/P Narwal Bala, Jammu.
Pincode: 180006
8. Zahoor Ahmed Bhat, age 41 years, S/o Gh. Rasool Bhat, R/o
Pattan, Srinagar. A/p Belicharana, Jammu.
Pincode: 180003.
9. Adil Hassan Bhat, Age 38 Years, S/o Gh Hassan Bhat, R/o
Krangsoo Mattan Anantnag R/o Panjtirthi, Jammu.
Pinocde: 180001
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: OA 1466/2023
10. Abdul Waheed Bhat, Age 42 Years S/o Mohd. Akram Bhat, R/o
Namtehal, Chadura, Budgam A/P Narwal, Jammu.
Pincode: 180004
11. Mubark Ahmad Bhat, Age 41 Years S/o Manzoor Ahmad Bhat,
R/o Chanser, Kulgam, Kashmir. A/P Beli Charana, Jammu.
Pincode: 180001
12. Javid Ahmad Najar, Age 41 Years S/o Gh Ahmad Najar, R/o
Frisal District Kulgam A/P Lakkar Mandir, Janipur, Jammu. Pincode:
180007.
13. Mohd Shafi lone, age 41 years, S/o Mohammed Ramzan Lone,
R/o Sheeri Baramula. A/p Bathindi, Jammu. Pincode: 181151.
14. Muzafar Hamid Bhat. Age 36 Years S/o Abdul Hamid Bhat. R/o
Agriculture Office Road Katrasoo Kulgam J&K A/P Beli Charana,
Jammu.
Pincode: 180001
15. Irfan Ali, Age 40 years S/o Ali Mohd Alaie, R/o Sidhra Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: OA 1466/2023
Pincode: 180019
16. Kousar Abdullah Bhat, Age 42 Years S/o Mohammad Abdullah
Bhat, R/o Gujjar Nagar, Jammu
Pincode: 180001
17. Mohd Latif Bhat Age 39 years S/o Mohd Jabar Bhat, R/o Pahloo
Nowgam Anantnag.
Pincode: 192201
18. Smt. Jasvir kour Age 38 years D/o S. Baldev Singh, R/o Ward No.
06 Govind Nagar, Nowshera, Distrist Rajouri. Pincode: 185151.
19. Prince Mohammad Malik, age 44 years, S/o Gulam Mohammad
Malik, Chinkipora, Sopore. A/p Sidhra Jammu. Pincode: 180019. R/o
20. Mohd. Alyas, Age 40 years R/o Kalaban, Tehsil Menhdhar,
District Poonch
Pincode: 185111
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 5 :: OA 1466/2023
24. Sheikh Ferouz Gul, age 42 years, S/o Sheikh Gulam Mohmad, R/o
Handwara. A/p Bathindi, Jammu. Pincode: 181151.
22. Radhika Gupta, 41 years, D/o Kamal Gupta, R/o Near Town hall
Rajouri, Pincode: 185231
23. Sajad Ahmed, Age 42 years S/o Mohd Hanif, R/o Kalaban Teh
Mendhar Distt Poonch.
Pincode: 185111.
24. Riyaz Ahmed Sohil, age 43 years, S/o Gulam Mohd Sohil, R/o
Zalchous Tehsil Banihan District Ramban Pincode: 182146.
25. Saliya Manzoor, age 42 years, D/o Manzoor Ahmed lone, R/o
Bathindi, Tehsil Bahu Distrcit Jammu. Pincode: 181151.
26. Reyazul Gani Wani Age 41 years S/o Abdul Gani Wani, R/o
Watlar Ganderbal
Pincode: 191201
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 6 :: OA 1466/2023
27. Safina Azad, Age 43 Years D/o Azad Ahmed Khan, R/o Sakhi
Madian Mendhar Pincode: 185111
28. Khurshid Ahmad, 40 Years S/o Mr Ghulam Hassan, R/o
Government Medical College and Hospital Bakshi Nagar, Tehsil &
District Jammu, Pincode: 180001.
29. Mudasir Ahmad Malik, Age 43 years S/o GH Nabi Malik, R/o
Bonpora Akingam, Anantnag A/P Bhagwati Nagar, Jammu. 180012
Pincode:
30. Javaid Iqbal, Age 48 years S/o Mohd Latief, R/o Galhuta, Tehsil
Mendhar & District Poonch.
Pincode: 185111
31. Rajda Mahmood Ghulam, age 44 years S/o Mohammad Shah, R/o
Kralteng S R Gunj. A/P New Plot, Jammu.
Pincode: 180005.
32. Naziya Majid, age 40 years D/o Abdul Majid Bakshi, R/o 582-83,
Govt Housing Colony, Baghi Mehtab, Jammu. Pincode: 180001
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 7 :: OA 1466/2023
33. Shahid Pervaz, age 44 years S/o Abdul Hamid, R/o Nagar
Bhadarwah Distt Doda.
Pincode: 182202
34. Sofi ul Haq age 47 years S/o Bashir Ahmed Bhat, R/o Nowshera,
District Rajouri. Jammu.
Pincode: 185151.
35. Ishrat Jahan, age 41 year, D/o Abdul Rashid Mir, R/o Ward No. 8
Rajouri,
Pincode: 185231
36. Andleeb mir, age 41 years, D/o Abdul Rashid Mir, R/o Ward No.
8 Rajouri.
Pincode: 185231
37. Mudasir Jan, age 45 years S/o Abdul Ahad Naik, R/o Wattoo A/P
Bhagwati Nagar, Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 8 :: OA 1466/2023
Pincode: 180012
38. Bharat Singh, age 41 years, S/o Vijay Singh, R/o Chakka
Bhaderwah. A/p Nanak Nagar, jammu. 180004 Pincode:
39. Varsha Devi, age 42 years, D/o Balwant Raj, Tehsil Bhaderwah
district Doda. Pincode: 182222
40. Yasmeena Bano, Age 44 Years D/o Khushi Mohd Shiekh, R/o
Dharam Bugh Kralapora Teh. B. K. Pora Dist. Budgam. A/P Shastri
Nagar, Jammu.
Pincode: 180004
40. Majaz Mohi ud din, age 41 year, S/o Gh. Mohi ud din, R/o
Yaripura Srinagar. A/p Malik market, Jammu.
Pincode: 181151
42. Sajid Ahmed Khan, age 43 years, S/o Bashirullah khan, R/o
Tangdar, Kupwara. A/p Sidhra, Jammu. Pincode: 180019.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 9 :: OA 1466/2023
43. Baya Kousar Ah. Monga, age 41 years, S/o Saif ud Din Monga,
R/o Uri Baramula. A/p Nowabad Bathindi Jammu. Pincode: 181151
44. Naveen katoch, age 42 years, District S/o Param Katoch, R/o
Doda. Pincode: 182222
45. Mussarat Hussain, age 43 years, D/o Mohd Saidiq, R/o Goha,
District Doda. Pincode: 182222.
46. Suriya Jan, age 43 years, D/o Azad Gh. Mohi ud Din Ganie, R/o
Tahad Tehsil and District Pulwama. A/p Janipur Jammu. Pincode:
180007.
47. Javid Ahmad Darm, age 41 years S/o Ghulam Mohammad Dar,
R/o Usman colony, Lane 8, Near police station, Bathindi Jammu.
Pincode: 180011.
48. Tariq Ahmad Magrey, age 41 S/o Mohd Ahsan years, Magrey,
R/o Muthi Jammu Pincode: 181205.
49. Anjum U Sahar, age 40 years S/o Ab Majid Wasil. R/o Narainin
Mohalla, Jammu Pincode: 180019
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 10 :: OA 1466/2023
50. Vaneet Kumar, age 37 Years S/o Devi Dass, R/o Kheora, Near
Govt PG College Rajouri Pincode: 185131
51. Hadia Hamid, age 39 years S/o Hamid Ullah Dijoo, R/o Zakura
A/P Chani Rama, Jammu. Pincode: 180015
52. Shamim Ahmed, age 41 years R/o Daral Tehsil and District
Rajouri. Pincode: 185131
53. Umair Nazir, age 39 Years S/o Nazir Ahmed Sheikh, R/o Mohalla
Sgr R/o Sidra Jammu. Pincode: 180019
54. Paramjit Singh, Age 40 Years S/o Surishti Singh, R/o Plot. No 17
Resham Ghar Colony Jammu. Pincode: 180001.
55. Sameena Kousar, age 41 years, D/o Khalil Ahmed, R/o Jawahar
Nagar Rajouri. Pincode: 185231.
56. Mohd Irfan Mughal, age 42 years, S/o Mohd Luqman Mughal,
R/o Shalteng, Sirnagar. A/P Bhathindi, Jammu. Pincode: 181152.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 11 :: OA 1466/2023
57. Mansor Ahmed Khan, age 44 years, S/o Gh. Nabi Khan, R/o
Dungia, Tehsil Bhau District Jammu. Pincode: 180006
58. Sheeraz Ahmad, age 40 years S/o Wali Mohammad Hajam R/o
Krangsoo Mattan Anantnag. A/P Bakshi Nagar, Jammu. Pincode:
180001.
Khazir 59. Dr. Mehmooba Akhter age, 41 years S/o Mohd. Mir, R/o
Hajin, Handwara A/P Hajipura Colony, Janipur, Jammu. Pincode:
180007
60. Gulzar Ahmad Sheikh, age 43 S/o Mohd Yousf years, Sheikh, R/o
Danow Kulgam A/P Janipur, Jammu.
Pincode: 180007
61. Shahid Shafi Itoo, age 39 years, S/o Mohammad Shafi Itoo, R/o
House10, Lane 7 Vidhata nagar, Bathindi, Jammu. Pincode: 181152
62. Samreen qureshi, age 42 years, D/o Nissar Ahmed Qureshi, R/o
Hyderpura, Srinagar. A/p Nowabad Bathindi. Jammu Pincode:
181151.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 12 :: OA 1466/2023
63. Aftab Latief Khan, age 41 years, S/o Mohd Latief khan, R/O
Sakhi Madian Teh. Mendhar Distt. Poonch Pincode: 185111
64. Pardeep Singh, age 40 years S/o Pyar Chand, Gandoh R/o
Gowaloo, Tehsil Bhalessa (Gandoh), Disst Doda. Pincode: 182203
65. Mohd Rafiq, age 41 years S/o Talib Hussain, R/o Salwah
Teh.Mendhar District Poonch. Pincode: 185111
66. Zohara khatoon, age 38 years D/o Mohd Sadeeq, R/o Dharana
Mendhar Distt Poonch. Pincode: 185111.
67. Mohd Jhangir, age 42 Years S/o Mohd Sharief, R/O Chaktroo.
Tehsil Haveli District Poonch Jammu And Kashmir. Pincode: 185101.
68. Mohd Azam Khan, age 44 year, S/o Lal Khan R/o Salwah. Teh
Mendhar Distrcit Poonch. Pincode: 185111
69. Reyaz Ahmad Wani, age 46 years S/o Gh Mohd Wani, R/o
Samboora Pulwama. Pampore A/P Bakshi Nagar, Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 13 :: OA 1466/2023
Pincode: 180001.
70. Tariq Mehmood, age 42 years, S/o Nissar Hussain, R/o Surankote
Poonch.
Pincode: 185111
71. Ashaq Hussain Rather, age 38 years S/o Mubark Ahmad Rather,
R/o Hamdania Colony, Sarah Road Bajalta Sidhra Jammu.
Pincode: 180017.
72. Nazakit Hussain Shah, age 43 years, S/o Tassavir Hussain Shah,
R/o Ari Tehsil Mendhar and District Poonch.
Pincode: 185111
73. Ajaz Ahmad Mir, age 42 years S/o Ab Khaliq Mir, R/o
Behrampora, Rafiabad, Baramulla A/P Janipur, Jammu. Pincode:
180007.
74. Noor Ul Sebah Nishad, age 43 years, S/o Mohd. Akbar, R/o
Nishad Rajouri. Pincode: 185131
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 14 :: OA 1466/2023
75. Ab Ahad Malik, age 46 Years S/o Mohd Ismail Malik, R/o
Badriwan Pulwama A/P Gujjar Nagar, Jammu. Pincode: 180001
76. Shabir Hussain, age 47 years S/o Abdul Aziz Tantry, R/o H.No
163 Bathindi Jammu. Pincode: 181152
77. Zakir Hussain Natnoo, age 44 years, S/o Ab. Rehman, R/o Village
Udyanpur tehsil Bharath Bagla Distt Doda. Pincode: 182202
78. Gh Mohi ud din khanday, age 44 years, S/o Gh. Nabi Khandi, R/o
Nanil Anantnag. A/p Sidhra, Jammu. Pincode: 180019
79. Neelofar Akhter, age 40years D/o Ab.Kabir Wani, R/o Batakoot
Pahalgam, A/P Janipur, Jammu. Pincode: 180007.
80. Sakandar Hussain Shah, age 42 years S/o Adalat Hussain Shah,
R/o village Pathanateer Teh. Mendhar Distt. Poonch. Pincode: 185111
81. Dr. Mahinder Nath, age 50 years S/o Late Sh Ram Nath, R/o Link
Road opposite Kenderya VidyalayaSchool Bhaderwah, Tehsil
Bhaderwah District Doda. Pincode: 182222
82 Basharat Hafiz, age 44 years, S/o Hafiz Ullah, R/o Tilagam
Baramula. A/p Bathindi, Jammu. Pincode: 181151.
83. Shahnaz Mir, age 41 years, S/o Ghulam Nabi Mir, R/o Ratnipura
Pulwama. A/p Janipur, Jammu. Pincode: 180007
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 15 :: OA 1466/2023
84. Fareed Ahmed, age 42 years, S/o Mohd Ismail, R/o Banihal
Distrcit Ramban Pincode: 182222. Doda.
85. Mushtaq Ahmad Mir, age 41 years, S/o Jalaluddin Mir, R/o
Pulwana, Srinagar. A/p Mohalla Ustad Pincode: 180001 Jammu.
86. Farooq Ahmed Dar, age 42 years, S/o Adbul Aziz Dar, R/o
Tabwheed Abad Hajin. A/p Bakshi Nagar Jammu. Pincode: 180001
87. Abdul Hafiz Butt, age 41 year, S/o Shamas Din, R/o Badano
Doda. 182222. Pincode:
88. Shazia Kouser, age 37 Years D/o Abdul Majid, R/o Palam, Teh
and Distt Rajouri, Pincode: 185132"
89. Mohd. Yaseen Bhat, age 41 years, S/o Abdul Gani bhat, R/o
Chardoora Budgam. A/p Bathindi Jammu. Pincode: 181151.
90. Mohd Ayoub Wani, age 42 years, S/o Sona ullah Wani, R/o AR
Dehruna Dooru, District Anantnag Kashmir. A/p Mirzapur, Janipur,
Jammu. Pincode: 180007.
91. Khurshid Ahmad Sheikh, age 42 years S/o Gh. Hassan Sheikh,
R/o Dlawach Qazigund Doru Anantnag. A/p Mohalla Ustad, jammu
Pincode: 180001.
92. Mohammad Abas Lone, age 40 years S/o Bashir Ahmad Lone,
R/o Hyderpura, Jammu. Pincode: 181152
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 16 :: OA 1466/2023
93. Manzoor Ahmad Sheikh, age 43 years S/o Ab Samad Sheikh, R/o
Bichewara Qazigund (Kralgund) Kupwara. A/p Belicharana, Jammu.
Pincode: 180003
94. Shah Nawaz malik, age 42 years, S/o G. N Malik, R/o Trehgham
Kupwara, A/p Chinor Jammu. Pincode: 180011
95. Imtiyaz Hassan Khanday, age 40 years, S/o Ghulam Hassan
Khanday, R/o Karangso Mattan Anantnag. A/P Narwal Bala Jammu.
Pincode: 181152.
96. Jairnal Singh, age 38, S/o Bhajan Singh, R/o Qilla Dharal, District
Rajouri. Pincode: 185212.
97. Abid Rafiq, age 40 years, S/o Abdul Rafiq, R/o Mohalla Qilla
Tehsil Bhaderwah District Doda. Pincode: 182202.
98. Mudasir Ahmed Sheikh, age 41 years, S/o Ghulam Ahmed
Sheikh, R/o Baghmahanand, Watler Ganderbal. A/P New Plot Jammu.
Pincode: 180001
99. Khursheed Ahmed Dar, age 41 years, S/O Ghulam Mohd Dar, R/o
Udhmapur Pincode: 182101.
100. Jasvinder Singh, age 40 years, S/o Ajit Singh, R/o Qilla Dharal
Tehsil Nowshera, District Rajouri. Pincode: 185131.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 17 :: OA 1466/2023
101. Chayista Chisti, age 38 years, D/o Mohd Shafi, R/o Tulla Mulla
Ganderbal Watler. A/p Bhagwati Nagar Jammu. Pincode: 180012.
102. Khursheed Ahmed Parray, age 42 years, S/o Ghulam Mohd
parray, R/o Beerwah Budgam. Bathindi A/P Jammu. Pincode:
181152.
103. Gulzar Ahmed Rather, age 43 years, S/o Ghulam Mohd Rather,
R/o Aglar Pinjora Shopian. A/P Bathindi Jammu. Pincode: 181152.
104. Mohd Ashraf Najar, age 41 years, S/o G.A Najar, R/o Chadoora
Budgam. A/p Channi Himmat. Pincode: 180015.
165. Tariq Ahmed Wani, age 38 years, S/o Ghulam Hassan Wani, R/o
Kirpalpura Seri pattan Baramula. Bathindi Jammu. Pincode: 181152.
A/p
106. Ajaz Ahmad Najar, age 41 years, S/o Ghulam Rasool Najar, R/o
Chinar Colony, Near Service Station, Sidhra Jammu. Pincode: 180019
107. Bilal Ahmad Rather, age 44 years, S/o Mohd Amin Rather, R/o
Bathindi, Jammu Pincode: 181152.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 18 :: OA 1466/2023
108. Hilal Ahmed Naik, age 42 years, S/o G.h Nabi Naik, R/o
Pinglena Pulwama, A/p Chwadi Jammu. Pincode: 180015.
109. Haroon Rashid, age 38 Years S/o Abdul Rashid, R/o Lah Tehsil
Thannamandi District Rajouri. Pincode: 185212
110. Mohd Qasim Mir, age 39 Years, S/o Abdul Rashid Mir, Plangarh
Rajouri Tehsil Thannamandi District Rajouri. Pincode: 185212
111. Rais Ahmad Dar, age 36 Years S/o Muhammad Yousf Dar, R/o
Janipur Jammu Pincode: 180007
112. Gulzar Ahmad Itoo, age 42 years, S/o Ab salam Itoo, R/o Nagam
kokernag District Anantnag Kmr A/p Janipur, Jammu. Pincode:
180007.
113. Ayaz Ahmed, age 40 years S/o Ghulam Qadir, R/o Ward No 02,
Madina Colony Rajouri. Pincode: 185203.
114. Mohd Ashraf Wani, age 39 years, S/o Mohd Ibrahim Wani, R/o
Reban Zainapura Shopian. A/p Bathindi, Jammu. Pincode: 181152.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 19 :: OA 1466/2023
115. Barkat Ullah Wani, age 38 years, S/o Gh Nabi Wani, R/o
Hakabara Kosumbagh A/P Chowkichora, Jammu. Pincode: 185154
116. Showket Ali Lone, age 41 years S/o Gh Rasool Lone, R/o
Wanpora Gurez Teh. Gurez A/P Lakkar Mandir, Janipura, Jammu.
Pincode: 180007
117. Mohamad Hussain, age 42 years, S/o Mushtaq Ahmad, R/o
Habba Kadal, A/p Talab Tillo Jammu. Pincode: 180002
118. Arshad ahmed paray, age 39 years, S/o Abdul Khaliq Paray, R/o
Birwah Budgam, A/P Channi Jammu. Pincode: 180015.
119. Irshad Ahmad Bhat, age 37 years S/o Gh Ahmad Bhat, R/o
Village Sialkote Rafi Abad PO Rohama District Baramulla A/P
Bathindi, Jammu. Pincode: 181152
120. Manzoor Ahmad Thoker, age 45 years S/o Abdul Salam
Thokero, R/o Gadiser, bijbehara, Anantnag A/P Bathindi, Jammu.
Pincode: 181152.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 20 :: OA 1466/2023
121. Nadeem Sadar Buhroo, age 43 years, S/o Gh. Mohd Buhroo, R/o
Azad Guni Baramulla. Pincode: 193101
122. Mir Firdous Ahmad, age 38 years, S/o Gh. Mohd Mir, R/o Kanir
Chadoora Budgam A/P Lakkar Mandir Janipura, Jammu. Pincode:
180007.
123. Tariq Ahmad Rather, age 40 years, S/o Gh. Nabi Rather, R/o
Grawgund Pulwama Kashmir A/P Kachi Chawni, Jammu. Pincode:
180001.
124. Syed Naseer Hussain Razvi age 42 years S/o Syed Ali Shah
Razvi, R/o Mahawara Budgam A/P Janipur Colony Near Trimurti
Mandir House No. 852 Janipor Jammu.
Pincode: 180007
125. Dr Suraya Amin Basu, age 47 years, S/o Mohammad Amin
Basu, R/o Bemina Srinagar A/P Mohalla Ustad, Jammu.
Pincode: 180001
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 21 :: OA 1466/2023
126. Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan, age 44 years, S/o Mohd Ashraf Khan, R/o
Gopal pora kalan Mattan Anantnag A/P Mohalla Ustad, Jammu.
Pincode: 180001
127. Waseem Raja, age 46 years S/o Mohd Asadullah Shaikh, R/o
Mohalla Qilla Bhaderwah, J&K. Pincode: 182222.
128. Sartaj Ahmad Malik, age 39 years, S/o Mohmad yousuf Malik,
R/o Akipora Khee Jogi Pora Tehsil and District Kulgam Kashmir.
Hyderpura Janipur, Jammu.
Pincode: 180015
129. Majid Aziz, age 39 Years, S/o Ab. Aziz, R/o Nagar Bhaderwah
District Doda.
Pincode: 182221
130. Azad Hussain Mattoo, age 45 years S/o Gh Nabi Mattoo, R/o
Azadpora, S.K. Colony Anantnag A/P Mirzapur, Janipur, Jammu.
Pincode: 180007.
131.Gul Share Ahmad Mir, age 37 year, S/o Sonaullah Mir, R/o
Saloosa Kreeri Baramulla A/P Gujjar Nagar, Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 22 :: OA 1466/2023
Pincode: 180001.
132. Abdul Latief, age 38 Years S/o Sidda Wani, R/o Mangota Tehsil
Marmat Distt. Doda
Pincode: 182201.
133. Abid Hussain, age 40 years, S/oMohammad Hussain, R/o
Bhagla, District, Doda.
Pincode: 182202.
134. Mohd Aftab, age 42 Years S/o Faiz Hussain, R/o Kot, Tehsil
Bhalwal & District Jammu. Pincode: 181122
135. Showkat Ali 40 Years, Lone, Age S/o Mohd Mukhtar Lone, R/o
Bakshi Nagar Jammu.
Pincode: 180001.
136. Manzar Akhtar, age 40 years S/o Akhtar Hussain, R/o Pasri tehsil
Bhadarwah.
Pincode: 182122.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 23 :: OA 1466/2023
137. Rameez Rashid, age 43 Years S/o Abdul Rashid Khuroo, R/o
Dangiwacha Rafiabad Baramulla A/P Beli Charana, Jammu. Pincode:
180003
138. Imtiyaz Ahmad Sheikh, age 39 Years, S/o Abdul Khaliq Sheikh,
R/o Qasba Lar Ganderbal A/P Bhagwati Nagar, Jammu. Pincode:
180012.
139. Irshad Ahmad Dar, age 39 years, S/o Bashir Ahmad Dar, R/o
Malwan Kulgam, ASCOMS Medical College Jammu. Pincode:
180019
140. Showkat Ahmad Bhat, age 41 years, S/o Abdul Rehman Bhat,
R/o Qasba Lar, Ganderbal 191131 A/P Bhagwati Nagar, Jammu
Pincode: 180012
141. Khalid Nadeem Khan, age 39 years, S/o Gh Hassan khan, R/o
Trehgam Kupwara A/P Bhagwati Nagar, Jammu. Pincode: 180012
142. Qazi Syed Sajad, age 45 years, S/o Qazi Syed Rasool, R/o Qazi
Mohallah, village: Dist: Delina, Teh and Baramulla, J&K A/P New
Plot, Jammu. Pincode; 180005
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 24 :: OA 1466/2023
143. Farooq Ahmad Pandit, age 42 years S/o GH. Qadir Pandit, R/o
jablipors, Bijbehara, Anantnag. A/p Hyderpura, Jammu Pincode:
180007.
144. Tariq Rasool, age 44 years. S/o Ghulam Rasool, Pampore R/o
Lasjan Srinagar. A/P Janipur, Jammu.
Pincode: 180007.
145. Shagufta Hamid, age 41 years, S/o Abdul Hamid Gilkar, R/o
Soura Srinagar, A/p belicharana, Pincode: 180003 Jammu.
146. Mohd Anzir, age 42 years, S/o Mohd Yousuf Qureshi, R/o
Nawagabra Karna District Kupwara, A/p Beli Charana Jammu.
Pincode: 180003.
147. Chodri ashiq Hussain gagi, age 42 yeaas, S/o Jamal ud Din, R/o
Gagee Doruswani. A/p Panjtirthi, Pincode: 180001 Jammu.
148. Irshad amhed, age 41 years, R/o S/o Mohd hanief, Dilabagh,
The, Karnah, A/p bakshi Nagar, Pincode: 180001
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 25 :: OA 1466/2023
149. Shokat Azim, age 41 years, S/o Abdul Azim, R/o Dilbar
Kupwara, A/p Bathindi, Pincode: 181152.
150. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, age 38 years, S/o Gulam Hassan Dar, R/o
Kulgam Srinagar. A/p Domana, Jammu Pincode: 181206
151). Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat, Age 41 years, S/o GH. Ahmad Bhat, R/o
New Colony Sujwan Jammu. Pincode: 180011.
152. Baldev singh, age 48 years S/o Krishan Singh, R/o V.P.O
Janglote Tehsil and District Kathua. Pincode: 184104.
153. Shabnum Ahad, age 43 Years, S/o Kh. Abdul Ahad, Budgam R/o
768 sector F, green Avenue colony Bemina A/P Janipur, Jammu.
Pincode: 180007
154. Zahoor Ahmad Tantray, age 41 years, S/o Gh.Mohammad
Ramnagri Shopian. A/P New Plot, Jammu. Pincode: 180005 Tantray,
R/o
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 26 :: OA 1466/2023
155. Manzoor Ahmad Lone age 40 years, S/o Abdul Gani Lone, R/o
Saidpora payeen Shopian. A/p Malik Market Jammu. Pincode:
181152.
156. Autar Ahmed, age 37 years S/o Mohd Bashir, R/o Village
Chandimarh Tehsil Surankote District Poonch.
Pincode: 185121.
157. Shahnaz Rashid, age 38 years S/o Ab Rashid Zargar, R/o Aglar
Pinjoura Shopian A/P Bhagwati Nagar, Jammu.
Pincode: 180012.
158. Feeroz Ahmad Koul, age 45 years, S/o Abdul koul, R/o Kulpra
Kulgam, A/p Channi Jammu. Pincode: 180015
Gurez
159. Mohd Rafiq lone, age 42 years, S/o Abdul Majid Lone, Shahpura
bandipur, A/p kacchi Chawni, Jammu. Pincode: 180001 R/o
160. Riyaz ahmed lone, age 41 years, S/o Ab Rehman Lone, R/o
Wanpura, Gurez bandipura, A/P Talab Tillo Pincode: 180002
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 27 :: OA 1466/2023
161. Hilal Ahmad Rather, age 42 years S/o Gh Mohiuddin Rather, R/o
Wagoora District Baramulla A/P Bhagwati Nagar, Jammu
Pincode: 180012.
162. Saliya Manzoor, age 42years, D/o Manzoor Ahmed Lone,
Chattabal District Srinagar. A/p Bhagwati nagar Jammu. Pincode:
180012.
163. Nuzhat Akhter, age 41 years, D/o Abdul Ghani Wani, R/o
Khudwani, District Kulgam. A/P Beli Charana Jammu. Pincode:
180003.
164. Samina Tabasum, age 39 years, D/o Farooq Ahmad Malik, R/o
Pulwama A/P Chatapora Bathindi, Jammu. Pincode: 181152
165. Shabir Ahmad, age 43 years Sheikh Assadullah Sheikh,
Badasgam Hakura Ang 192211, Jammu, A/P Mohalla Dungian,
Teshil Bahu District Jammu. Pincode: 180006
166. Fida Ahmad Bhat, age 49 years, S/o Hamidullah Bhat, R/o
Badoora (Akingam) Anantnag. A/P Bathindi, Jammu. Pincode:
181152
167. Dr. Zubair Ahmad Dar, age 43 years, S/o Abdul Ahad Dar,
nagam Budgam.
A/P J&K C/o Aashiq Hussain Khanday Govt Quarter NO. 109 Block
S, Poonch House Talab Tiloo Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 28 :: OA 1466/2023
Pincode: 180002.
168. Gowhar Ahmad Dar, age 42 years, S/o Abdul Gani Dar, R/o
Below Dergund Pulwama Rajpori. A/p Bathindi, Jammu Pincode:
181152
169. Imtiyaz Ahmad Mir, age 43 years, S/o GH Hassan MIR, R/o
Kanir Chardoora Budgam A/P Bhagwati Nagar, Jammu.
Pincode: 180012
170. Nawaz Ahmad Wani, age 43 years, S/o Ab.Rashid Wani, Hakura
Badasgam Anantnag. A/P Nowabad, Jammu. Pincode: 180001.
171. Sajad Ahmad Shah, age 47 years, S/o Ab. Aziz Shah, R/o
Jadipora. A/P Mohalla Ustad, Jammu.
Pincode: 180001.
172. Javed ahmed malik, age 39 years, S/o Gh Mohd Malik, R/o
Wagoora Baramula, A/p Kunjwani Jammu. Pincode: 180012..
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 29 :: OA 1466/2023
173. Wasim Hassan, age 45 years, S/o Rehmatullah Khan, R/o
Chakka, Bhaderwah. (Doda)
Pincode: 182222
174. Rahila Kounser, age 42 years, S/o Ali Ahmed Mohsen, R/o Lal
Bazaar Srinagar, A/p Bantalab Jammu. Pincode: 181123.
175. Muzafar Ahmad Lone, age 46 years, S/o Gh. Mohammad Lone,
R/o Ray Kaprin, Shopian, 192303 A/P Beli Charana, Jammu.
Pincode: 180003.
176. Shanaź ahmed khan, age 40 years, S/o Mohd Rayaz Khan, R/o
Gunthal Tehsil Surankote district poonch.
Pincode: 185121
177. Mudser Nisar Magrey, age 37 years, S/o Nisar Hussain Magrey,
R/o Dawar Gurez District Bandipora A/P Beli Charana, Jammu.
Pincode: 180003.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 30 :: OA 1466/2023
178. Aftab Ahmad Khan, age 42 years, S/o bashir Ullah khan, R/o
Karnah Kupwara, A/p Chawadi Channi Jammu. Pincode: 180015.
179. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Karlopia, age 41 years, S/o Pritam Kumar
Karlopia, Basantgarh R/o Ramnagar Udhampur, Pincode: 182122.
180. Dr Pervaiz Ahmad Chalkoo, age 47 years, S/o Haji Abdul Rashid
Chalkoo, R/o Boniyar C/o Ascoms Jammu.
Pincode: 180019
181. Azad Ahmad Kutty, age 44 years, S/o Gh. Ahmad Kutty, R/o
Bajalta Jammu. Pincode: 180017.
182. Zahoor Ahmad, age 45 years, S/o Ghulam Ali, R/o Jamia masjid
Baramulla, A/p Bakshi Nagar. Pincode: 180001.
183. Rayees Ahmad Dar, age 47 years, S/o Habib ullah Dar, R/o
Pulwama, A/P New Plot, Jammu. Pincode: 180005.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 31 :: OA 1466/2023
184. Parvez Ahmad Kumar, age 40 years, S/o Gh. Ahmad Kumar, R/o
Khajapora Shopian. A/P Bathindi Jammu Tehsil Bahu, District
Jammu.
Pincode: 181152.
185. Zaffar Mushtaq, age 44 year, S/o Ayaz Mushtaq Ahmed Bhat,
R/o Nawabad Sunjwan Jammu. Pincode: 180011.
186. Muddasir Ali, age 39 years S/o Ali Mohd Sheikh, R/o Bathindi,
Jammu.
Pincode: 181152.
187. Mohd Junaid, age 39 years S/o Mohd Latif, R/o Rekiban Darhal
Rajouri.
Pincode: 185135.
188. Khursheed Alam, age 36 years, S/o Gh. Mohammad Lone, R/o
Poly Hill Estate Channi Rama Jammu.
Pincode: 180015
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 32 :: OA 1466/2023
189. Bilal Ahmad Khoja, age 41 years, R/o House No. 49 Bathindi
Jammu.
Pincode: 181151.
190. Ishfaq Shafi Peer, age 38 years, S/o Mohd Shafi Peer, R/o Bajalta
Jammu.
Pincode: 180017.
191. Muzamil Ahmad, age 40 years, S/o Noor Mohammad Bhat, R/o
Shahbo Near Central Jail Srinagar A/P Gandhi Nagar, Rainawari
Jammu. Pincode: 180004.
192. Roof Ahmad Thakur, age 47 years, S/o Gulam Mohammad
Thakur, R/o Housing Colony, Bemina, Srinagar, Janipur, Jammu.
Pincode: 180007.
193. Shaheena Parveen, age 41 years, D/o Ghulam Qadir Bhat, R/o
Regipura. A/p Talab Tillo Jammu. Pincode: 180003
194. Sumaira, age 39 years, D/o Sheikh Khazir Mohammad, R/o
Brein Fathkadal Srinagar, A/p Janipur Jammu. Pincode: 180007.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 33 :: OA 1466/2023
195. Javaid ahmad parray, age 41 years, S/o Gh. Rasool Parray, R/o
Dailgam Anantnag, A/p Bakshi nagar, Jammu. Pincode: 180001.
196. Shafiya Yaseen, age 42 years, D/o Mohd Yaseen, R/o Shopian,
A/p Chawadi, jammu. Pincode: 180015.
197. Kaiser Sadiq Wani, age 42 years, S/o Mohd Sidqi Wani, R/o
Budgam, A/p Rehari Jammu. Pincode: 180001.
198. Basharat Hussain, age 44 years, S/o Fazal Ahmed, R/o Village
Dharana Tehsil Mendhar, District Poonch near Govt Degree college
Mendhar. Pincode: 185111
199.Dr. Gh Rasool Bhat, age 42 years, S/o Gh Hassan Bhat, R/o
Chinar colony, Near Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Jammu. Pincode:
Sidhra 180019.
200. Abul Ala Dar, age 47 years, S/o Abdul Salam Dar, R/o Parnewa
Budgam. Bathindi, Jammu. A/p Pincode: 181152.
201. Gh Mohd Pandit, age 50 years, S/o Gh Mohiuddin Pandit, R/o
Bijbehara A/P Bantalab, Jammu. Pincode: 181123.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 34 :: OA 1466/2023
202. Dr Abdul Roaf Dar, age 40 years, S/o Abdul Majeed Dar, R/o SS
Lane Nawabad Sunjwan Jammu.
Pincode: 180011.
208. Zahoor Ahmed Rather, age 43 years, S/o Ghulam Mohmad
Rather, R/o Baramulla / Bhss Baramulla Wagoora A/P Channi Rama,
Jammu.
Pincode: 180015.
204. Mushtaq Ahmad Sofi, age 48 years, S/o GH Rasool Sofi, R/o
Kreeri Baramulla, A/P Sunjwan, Jammu.
Pincode: 180011
205. Parvaiz Hussain Bhat, age 41 years, S/o Gh Mohmad Bhat, R/o
Srandoo, Kulgam A/P Bhagwati Nagar, Jammu.
Pincode: 180012.
266. Manzoor Ahmad Reshi age 42 years S/o Gh Ahmad Reshi, R/o
Panjtirthi, Jammu.
Pincode: 180001.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 35 :: OA 1466/2023
207. Nayeem Rashid, age 45 years, S/o Ab.Rashid Bhat, R/o
Zazripora Kulgam Bakshi Nagar, Jammu. A/P
Pincode: 180001.
208. Bilal Ahmad Itoo, agr 45 years, S/o Mohd Yousuf Itoo, R/o
Kulpora, Kulgam, Kashmir A/P Bhagwati Nagar, Jammu.
Pincode: 180012.
209. Asif Iqbal, age 46 years, S/o Mohd Iqbal, R/o Qilla Mohalla
Bhaderwah Doda
Pincode: 182222.
200. Mohsin Gull Khan, age 42 years, S/o Gh. Mohd. Khan, R/o
Sidhra Jammu.
Pincode: 180019.
211. Bikram Singh, age 39 years S/o Sh. Lal Chand, R/o Bijarni,
Tehsil Bhagwah and District Doda.
Pincode: 182222.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 36 :: OA 1466/2023
212. Nazir Ahmad Bhat, age 45 years, S/o Ghulam Mohd Bhat, R/o
lalpura Baramula. A/p Sainik Colony, Jammu.
Pincode: 180015.
213. Gowhar Nazir Wani, age 41 years, S/o Nazir Ahmad Wani, Age
41 Years, Sr. Lecturer History GOVT. MPML HSS SRINAGAR.
R/o Pantha Chowk Srinagar A/p Bhagwati Nagar, Jammu.
Pincode: 180012
214. Imtiyaz Ahmad Malik, age 42 years, S/o Mohd Jabar Malik, R/o
Chedipor Chitragam Shopian A/p Muthi, Jammu. Basharat Hafeez.
Pincode: 181205.
215 Tariq Parvez Sohil, age 55 years, S/o Ghulam Mohd
Chacknarwah Sohil, R/o Tehsil Banihal, District Ramban Pincode:
182144.
216. Santosh Kumar, age 43 years, S/o Dharam Singh, R/o Doda,
Jammu. Pincode: 182222.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 37 :: OA 1466/2023
217. Shabana Amin, age 44 years, S/o Mohd. Amin Bhat, R/o
Bathandi,Jammu near Wave Jammu. Pincode: Mall, 181151.
218. Mumtaz Iqbal, age 41 years S/o Abdul Ghani, R/o Poonch
Manjakote. Pincode: 185131.
219. Tanveer Ahmed, age 40 years, S/o Abdul Karim Bhat, R/o Vill.
Soura Teh. Bhalla, Doda. Pincode: District 182222.
220 Aijaz Ahmad Baba, age 37 years, S/o Mohmmad Syed Baba, R/o
Arampora, Sopore A/P Beli Charana, Jammu. Pincode: 180003.
221. Ashaq Hussain Mir, age 41years, S/o M. Assadullah Mir, R/o
Shastri Nagar, Jammu. Pincode: 180004
222. Javed Ahmed Tali, age 41 years, S/o Ghulam Nabi Tali,
R/oDevsar Kulgam. A/p Panjtirthi jammu. Pincode: 180001.
223. Shaheena Akhter, age 44 years, D/o Adbul Ahad Parray, R/o
Sheera, Baramulla. A/p Bakshi Nagar Jammu. Pincode: 180001
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 38 :: OA 1466/2023
224. Ajaz Ahmad Rather, age 40 years, S/o Mohammad Ismail
Rather, R/o Bumthan Mirbazar Anantnag A/P Janipur, Jammu.
Pincode: 180007.
225. Yasir Arfat, age 39 years, S/o Abdul Qayoom, R/o Dandi
Bhaderwah Disst Bhatindi jammu. Pincode: 181151. Doda.
(42)
226. Mohammad Saleem Wani, age 38 years, S/o Ghulam
Mohammad Wani, R/o Panzath Wanpora, P/o Qazigund, District
Anantnag A/P Beli Charana, Jammu.
Pincode: 180003.
227 Mohd Yamin Lone, age 42 years, S/o Mohd Anwar Lone, R/o
Gujran Tulail Bandipora A/P Roop Nagar, Jammu.
Pincode: 180013.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 39 :: OA 1466/2023
229. Ashaq Hussain Samoon, age 40 years, S/o Gh Nabi Lone, R/o
Khandiyal Gurez (Umar Cony Bemina Sgr). A/P Mohalla Ustad,
Jammu.
Pincode: 180001.
229. Latief Ahmad Sheikh, age 44 years, S/o Gh. Mohd. Sheikh, R/o
Humshalibugh Yaripora, Kulgam Kashmir, A/P Janipur, Jammu.
Pincode: 180007
230. Bilal Ahmad Dar, age 42 years, S/o Ali Mohd Dar, R/o
Dogripora, Awantipora District Pulwama A/P Beli Charana, Jammu.
Pincode: 180003.
231. Peer Inaietullah Shah, age 40 years, S/o Peer Abdul Aziz Shah,
R/o Machama Tral Pulwama Kashmir A/p Beli Charana, Jammu.
Pincode: 180003.
232. Naseer Ahmad, age 40 years S/o Ab Ahad Trankroo, R/o
Doabgah Sopore A/P Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
Pincode: 180004
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 40 :: OA 1466/2023
233. Basharat Hussain Dar, age 42 years, S/o Bashir Ahmed Dar, R/o
Trenz Shopian A/P Bathindi, Jammu.
Pincode; 181151.
234. Sajad Ahmad rather, age 42 year, S/o Abdul Gani Rather, R/o
Khanabal, Kulgam. A/p Bantalab Jammu. Pincode: 181123.
235. Ram lal, age 41 year, S/o Shiv Ram, R/o Pouni, Reasi.
Pincode: 185203
236. Meraj, Ud Din Bhat, age 42 years, S/o Habib Ullah Bhat, R/o
Lakkar Mandir, Janipur, Jammu. Pincode: 180007.
237. Rayees Yaqoob Bhat, age 38 years, S/o Mohd Yaqoob Bhat, R/o
Khundora Anantnag A/P Qasim Nagar, Jammu.
Pincode: 180004
238. Rahid Ul Gafoor, age 41 years, S/o Sona Ullaha, R/o Uri,
Baramulla.
A/P Sidhra, Jammu. Pincode:
180019
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 41 :: OA 1466/2023
239. Nasreen Akhter, age 37 years, D/o Mohd Yousif, R/o Rajouri
(Dhandkote).
Pincode: 185131
240. Shabana Iqbal, age 41 years, D/o Mohd. Iqbal, R/o Dharal,
Tehsil Dharal, Rajouri.
Pincode: 185131
24/. Kamal Singh, age 42 years, S/o Sh Tej Singh, R/o V.P.O Janglote
Teh & Distt Kathua
Pincode: 184101
242. Mohd Shafi Ganie, age 49 years, S/o Mohd Abdullah Ganie, R/o
Kanganhall (Achabal) District Anantnag A/P Janipur, Jammu.
Pincode: 180007.
243. Mohd Rafiq, age 44 years, S/o Mohd Alam, R/o Kallar Mohra
Block Balakote, teh Mendhar BPO Bhata Dhurian Distt. Poonch.
Pincode: 185121.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 42 :: OA 1466/2023
244. Mohd Iqbal dar, age 41 Years, S/o Mohd Akbar Dar, R/o Hardu
Srinagar, A/p Bantalab Jammu. Pincode: 181123
245. Khursheed ahmed lone, age 42 years, S/o Abdul Wahab Lone,
R/o Handwara Kupwara, A/p janipur jammu. Pincode: 180007.
246. Abid Hussain Sheikh, age 44 years, S/o Ab. Jabbar Sheikh, R/o
Dawer Gurez. A/p Kacchi Chawni, Jammu. Pincode: 180001.
247. Tahir Hussain Dar, age 43 years, S/o Gh. Mohammad Dar, R/o
Hardu sorish Khag Budgam. 193411, A/P Beli Charana, Jammu.
Pincode: 180003.
248. Muzaffar Hussain, age 42 years, S/o Mohd Hussain, Ro
Chandak, Tehsil District Poonch. 185101. haveli Pincode:
249. Refaz Ahmad Dar, age 45 years: So Mohd Akbar Dar, R/o
Bonapara Anantnag, A/p Gandhi Nagar. Pincode: 180004
250. Raghu Nandan, age 42 years, S/o Ram Krishan, R/o V.p.o.
Budhi, Tehsil and District Kathua, Pincode: 184143
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 43 :: OA 1466/2023
251. Tanveer Ahmed Bhat, age 50 years, S/o Mohd Shafi Bhat R/o
Bulbul Nowgam, District Anantnag. A/p Bakshi Nagar Pincode:
180001.
252. Shabir Ahmed Rather, age 42 years, S/o Mohd Shaban Rather,
R/o Sopat Tanpura District Kulgam. A/p Bakshi Nagar, Pincode:
180001.
253. Manzoor Ahmed age 40 years S/o Mohd. Shafi, R/o Mankot
teshil Mendhar District Poonch. Pincode: 185111.
254. Niyaz Ahmed, age 50 years, S/o Ab. Ghani, R/o Bhata Dassa,
Tehsil Bhagwah District Doda. Pincode: 182202.
255. Dr. Mohd Naseem, age 41 years, S/o. Ghulam Nabi, R/o Karmail
Doda. Pincode: 182143.
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Sr. Adv Mr. Sunil Sethi, Mr. Waheed Choudhary,
Mr. T. M. Khan)
Versus
1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through
Commissioner/Secretary to Government General Administration
Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar- 180001.
2. Administrative Secretary to Government of Jammu & Kashmir,
Finance Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar- 180001.
3. Principal Secretary to Government of Jammu & Kashmir, School
Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar- 180001.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 44 :: OA 1466/2023
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, AAG, Mr. Rajesh Thapa, AAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 45 :: OA 1466/2023
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a) A writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to extend the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) to the applicants, on the ground that the advertisements pursuant to which they applied (2005, 2006, 2008 and 2009) were issued during the subsistence of OPS and the entire selection process commenced prior to the enforcement of NPS;
b) A writ, order or direction declaring that the applicants shall be deemed to have been appointed under OPS, and that NPS shall not be applicable to them in view of the settled legal position that the service conditions existing at the time of advertisement govern the selection;
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 46 :: OA 1466/2023
c) A writ, order or direction directing the respondents to transfer the entire NPS corpus, along with all accrued interest, from PFRDA to the General Provident Fund (GPF) accounts of the applicants;
d) A writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant all consequential benefits flowing from OPS, including but not limited to qualifying service, pension, family pension, gratuity, and all retiral and post-retiral benefits.
e) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The applicants had responded to Advertisement Notices No. 14-
PSC of 2005 dated 20.09.2005, 02-PSC of 2006 dated 17.01.2006, 06-PSC of 2008 dated 23.05.2008 and 07-PSC of 2009 dated 09.03.2009, all issued by the J&K Public Service Commission for filling up various posts of Lecturers across multiple disciplines. It is emphasized that all these HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 47 :: OA 1466/2023 advertisements were issued at a time when the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) was fully operational in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, and that the advertisements did not contain even the slightest indication, caveat, or transitional clause suggesting that the New Pension Scheme (NPS)-- which came later--would be applicable to candidates selected pursuant to these notifications. According to Learned Counsel, the applicants thus entered the selection process with a legitimate and statutorily-backed expectation that their service conditions, including pensionary entitlements, would remain governed by OPS, the scheme in force at the time of advertisement.
b) It is further submitted that the entire recruitment process--
including acceptance of forms, scrutiny of applications, conduct of screening/written tests, evaluation of results, and shortlisting for interviews--was conducted well before the issuance of SRO 400 of 2009 dated 24.12.2009, which subsequently introduced NPS with effect from 01.01.2010. Learned Counsel pointed out that several applicants participated in and cleared the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 48 :: OA 1466/2023 screening/written examinations long before the new pension regime was even conceived by the Government. Thus, the initiation and substantial advancement of the recruitment process under OPS created vested rights in favour of the applicants, and the applicants contend that their recruitment must be governed by the service conditions prevalent on the date of advertisement and commencement of selection, which indisputably was the OPS.
c) The delay in declaration of the final results, preparation of merit lists, forwarding of recommendations, and eventual issuance of appointment orders was entirely on account of the J&K Public Service Commission and other governmental authorities. The applicants, it is emphatically stated, had fulfilled every requirement within the time prescribed and had no role whatsoever in the delay. However, due to this prolonged administrative inaction and bureaucratic inefficiency, the appointment orders that should have been issued prior to 01.01.2010 were instead issued belatedly in 2010 and even as late as 2011. It is this administrative delay--fully attributable to HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 49 :: OA 1466/2023 the respondents--which resulted in the applicants being wrongfully and forcefully shifted to NPS, despite the fact that their selection process began and substantially advanced under OPS.
d) It was contended with considerable force that a large number of candidates who participated in the same selection process, arising from the same advertisements, and belonging to the same batch, were appointed prior to 01.01.2010 and are presently governed by the Old Pension Scheme. Learned Counsel argued that there is absolutely no justification for treating the applicants differently from those identically situated persons merely because their results or appointment orders were delayed by the authorities. Creating two classes of employees within the same advertisement and same selection process--one under OPS and the other under NPS--is, according to the applicants, a clear violation of the equality mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and amounts to hostile discrimination without any rational basis.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 50 :: OA 1466/2023
e) Learned Counsel submitted that, apart from accruing statutory
rights, the applicants had also developed an unequivocal legitimate expectation of being governed by OPS, since the recruitment process commenced under that scheme and there was no notification or representation by the authorities indicating any prospective change. It is further argued that the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel squarely applies, as the State, having invited applications under OPS, cannot subsequently shift the pension regime mid-process to the detriment of the candidates. The State, it was argued, cannot first assure OPS through its advertisements and recruitment rules and then revert to NPS because of delays for which the State alone is responsible.
f) It is further submitted that none of the advertisements from 2005 to 2009 contained any transitional or saving clause indicating that if the appointment happened after a certain date, NPS would automatically apply. Learned Counsel stressed that recruitment rules cannot be retrospectively changed to deprive candidates of benefits they were entitled to at the time of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 51 :: OA 1466/2023 advertisement. Therefore, imposing NPS retrospectively, despite the entire selection having commenced under OPS, is contended to be arbitrary, unconstitutional, legally unsustainable, and violative of principles of fairness, good governance, and settled service law jurisprudence.
g) Learned Counsel argued that the applicants, immediately upon being subjected to NPS, submitted repeated representations to the authorities requesting restoration of OPS, pointing out that the vacancies belonged to pre-NPS years, that the recruitment began under OPS, and that similarly situated persons had already been granted OPS. However, despite such representations, the respondents did not pass any speaking order or take any decision, thereby compelling the applicants to seek legal remedy before this Hon'ble Tribunal. This inaction, according to the applicants, further strengthens their grievance and demonstrates the arbitrary approach of the authorities.
h) Reliance is placed upon a long and consistent line of judicial precedents delivered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 52 :: OA 1466/2023 Naveen Kumar Jha, Parmanand Yadav, Tanaka Ram, Inspector Rajendra Singh, Niraj Kumar Singh, Shyam Kumar Choudhary, Chander Veer Singh, Davinder Singh Brar and Pawan Kumar & Ors. -- most of which have been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petitions -- as well as judgments of the Rajasthan High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court, and the judgment of the CAT Jammu Bench in Dr. Vijay Kumar Shivgotra. These authorities uniformly hold that employees recruited under advertisements issued before the cut-off date of NPS are entitled to the Old Pension Scheme, even if their joining is delayed due to administrative reasons, and that the Government cannot deprive selected candidates of OPS by citing its own delay.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents vehemently argued that SRO 400 of 2009, issued on 24.12.2009, clearly and unequivocally lays down that all Government employees HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 53 :: OA 1466/2023 appointed on or after 01.01.2010 shall mandatorily be governed by the New Pension Scheme (NPS). It was submitted that SRO 400 is a statutory notification having the force of law, and once it came into effect, it superseded the Old Pension Scheme in its entirety for all appointments made on or after the cut-off date. The language of SRO 400 admits of no exceptions, and therefore, the applicants, whose appointment orders were issued in 2010 or later, automatically fall within the ambit of NPS irrespective of when the selection process began.
b) It was further argued that the date of actual appointment--
i.e., the date on which an individual formally enters Government service--is the sole determinative factor for the applicability of pension rules. Learned Counsel submitted that pension entitlement does not relate back to the date of advertisement or the date on which examinations or interviews were held. According to the Respondents, the law recognises only one operative date--namely, the date of joining--and any pension benefit can accrue only from the scheme existing on that date. Therefore, the applicants' insistence on linking HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 54 :: OA 1466/2023 pension entitlement to the date of advertisement, vacancy or initiation of selection was termed legally unsustainable.
c) It is contended that SRO 400 of 2009 effectively overrides and replaces all earlier pensionary provisions, including the J&K CSR provisions relating to OPS. It was argued that once the Government, in exercise of its legislative and administrative powers, notified the new pension framework, no person appointed thereafter could be extended the benefits of the old regime. The Respondents asserted that pension schemes are policy matters, and courts/tribunals ordinarily do not interfere with the Government's decision to restructure or modify pension systems, particularly when such restructuring has been uniformly implemented across the State.
d) The Respondents further submitted that the transfer of accumulated contributions from the NPS (regulated by the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority-- PFRDA) into the General Provident Fund (GPF) accounts of employees is not permissible under the statutory framework HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 55 :: OA 1466/2023 governing NPS. It was argued that the NPS is a contributory, market-linked pension regime managed by PFRDA, whereas GPF is governed by CSR rules; the two schemes are structurally and legally incompatible. Therefore, directing a transfer of funds between the two distinct systems would contravene statutory guidelines and financial regulations.
e) It was also argued that the applicants cannot legitimately claim OPS merely because certain other candidates, who received appointment orders prior to 01.01.2010, continue to be governed by OPS. Learned Counsel submitted that the applicants and such candidates are not similarly situated, since the latter joined service under an earlier pension regime. The Respondents contended that difference in dates of appointment constitutes a valid and reasonable classification, and does not amount to hostile discrimination.
f) It is argued that by the end of December 2009, the introduction and enforcement of the NPS was widely known and had been notified in the public domain. Therefore, the applicants cannot HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 56 :: OA 1466/2023 claim to have been taken by surprise or misled regarding pension applicability. It was submitted that applicants participated in the selection process with full knowledge that appointments made after 01.01.2010 would fall under NPS, and hence cannot now rely on doctrines such as legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel.
g) The Respondents categorically denied that any vested or enforceable right accrued to the applicants to claim OPS merely because certain parts of the recruitment process--such as screening or written tests--were conducted before 01.01.2010. It was asserted that no right crystallises until the appointment order is issued, and any expectation prior to issuance of appointment is at best an "inchoate hope," not protected under law.
h) In view of the above submissions, Learned Counsel for the Respondents prayed for dismissal of the Original Application in limine, contending that the applicants' claim is contrary to the explicit language of SRO 400 of 2009, inconsistent with HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 57 :: OA 1466/2023 statutory pension provisions, and devoid of any legal merit. It was urged that granting OPS to the applicants would undermine statutory mandates and open the floodgates for claims from numerous similarly placed employees.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the relevant advertisement notices, the recommendations of the J&K Public Service Commission (PSC), the dates of selection steps, the Government orders of appointment, the SRO 400 notification dated 24.12.2009, and the applicable Civil Services Regulations (CSR). Upon such comprehensive evaluation, the following facts, legal issues and principles emerge for determination in this case.
5. At the outset, it is evident and undisputed that the applicants applied pursuant to advertisement notices No. 14-PSC of 2005 dated 20.09.2005, 02-PSC of 2006 dated 17.01.2006, 06-PSC of 2008 dated 23.05.2008 and 07-PSC of 2009 dated 09.03.2009 for various Lecturer posts. At the time these advertisements were issued, the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) governed the service conditions of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 58 :: OA 1466/2023 Government employees in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. The advertisements themselves did not contain any clause stipulating that a future pension regime such as NPS would apply even if the recruitment process was initiated under OPS.
6. The record further reflects that the selection process--including scrutiny of applications, screening and written tests, evaluation of answer scripts and preparation of shortlist--was undertaken by the PSC well before the issuance of SRO 400 of 2009 dated 24.12.2009, under which the New Pension Scheme (NPS) was introduced with effect from 01.01.2010. The applicants successfully participated in these stages, which indisputably took place under the OPS regime.
7. However, the PSC failed to finalize the selection process in a timely manner. The results, recommendations and final select lists were delayed and were issued only in 2010, and in some cases in 2011, long after the applicants had completed their part of the recruitment process. The record bears out that such delay was wholly attributable to the administrative functioning of the PSC and was entirely beyond the control of the applicants.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 59 :: OA 1466/2023
8. The applicants contend that due to this administrative delay, they were deprived of appointment under OPS even though the vacancies themselves related to pre-NPS years. Numerous other similarly situated candidates under the same advertisement notifications-- particularly in some disciplines where PSC completed the process diligently--were appointed prior to 01.01.2010 and continue to receive OPS benefits. The applicants, however, have been placed under NPS solely because their appointment orders were issued after 01.01.2010.
9. I note that before any vacancy is referred to the PSC, the concerned departments undertake a financial impact assessment regarding salary structure, allowances, and retirement benefits applicable to the posts. The posts advertised in 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2009 were all sanctioned and approved under the OPS framework. Therefore, the accrual of these vacancies under the OPS regime created a legitimate and enforceable expectation that appointments made against such vacancies would be governed by OPS--not NPS, which was introduced much later.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 60 :: OA 1466/2023
10. It is also relevant to note that none of the advertisement notices contained even an implied stipulation suggesting that, in the event of delayed appointments, the candidates would be shifted to a future and yet-to-be-notified pension regime. Neither the PSC nor the requisitioning departments anticipated a change in pension rules while issuing the advertisements. The applicants thus entered the selection process under OPS with a legitimate expectation that the pension scheme then in force would govern their service.
11. Had the PSC discharged its statutory obligations diligently and expeditiously, the applicants would have been appointed prior to 01.01.2010--like many others similarly situated persons who participated in the same selection process--and would have been automatically governed by OPS. The applicants cannot be penalised for the delay caused solely by the respondents.
12. The applicants have, since their appointment, persistently approached the authorities through written representations seeking restoration of OPS benefits. They pointed out that the vacancies belonged to pre- NPS advertisements and that several others in the same selection were HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 61 :: OA 1466/2023 granted OPS. Despite this, their representations were left undecided, compelling them to approach this Tribunal.
13. I further note the applicants' submission that the Government of J&K carried out extensive amendments to the J&K CSR vide SRO 400 dated 24.12.2009, including insertion of exception (6) to Article 167, which states:
"(6) The State Government Employees appointed on or after 01.01.2010 shall be governed by New Pension Scheme as per Article 249-M(B)... and accordingly, the existing Pension Rules shall not be applicable..."
Similar amendments were made to gratuity provisions (Art. 240-GG), noting that gratuity provisions "shall not be applicable" to persons appointed on or after 01.01.2010, as well as insertion of Chapter XIX-AA (Defined Contributory Pension Scheme).
14. It was therefore argued that the applicants, although appointed after 01.01.2010, ought not be treated as "appointed under NPS" because the delay was not theirs and because the vacancies were genuine OPS-
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 62 :: OA 1466/2023
era vacancies. It was stressed that if PSC had acted diligently, they would have been appointed--and thus covered by OPS--before 01.01.2010.
15. The Tribunal finds considerable force in the submission that the respondents' reliance on the mere date of appointment is misplaced. Appointments in public employment, for purposes of pension scheme applicability, must be judged not merely by the date of issuance of appointment orders, but by the date of advertisement, accrual of vacancy, commencement of selection, and the statutory service conditions existing at those times.
16. The applicants have relied upon a series of judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, as well as decisions from the Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, and even decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunals, including this Tribunal. These judgments consistently hold that candidates who participated in recruitment processes initiated under OPS are entitled to OPS benefits, even if their appointments were issued later due to administrative delay.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 63 :: OA 1466/2023
17. In particular, the applicants have relied on the foundational principle that service conditions crystallise on the date of advertisement, unless expressly amended by the State with retrospective effect, which has not been done in this case. The absence of any transitional clause in the advertisement notices and the fact that recruitment commenced entirely under OPS reinforces the applicants' claim.
18. I now examine the legal propositions arising under service jurisprudence. It is a well-established principle of law that the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-way. Pension is not merely a post- retirement benefit; it is a condition of service. Therefore, any change that adversely affects the recruits cannot be retrospectively applied once a selection process has commenced.
19. The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation squarely applies. As propounded by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, 1993 AIR 365, legitimate expectation arises when:
A public authority makes a representation (express or implied), Individuals rely upon it in shaping their conduct, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 64 :: OA 1466/2023 The authority cannot thereafter deviate without rational justification.
20. In this case, the advertisements represented that OPS would apply.
The applicants acted upon this representation and thus earned a legitimate expectation to be governed by OPS. Likewise, the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, laid down in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of UP, AIR 1979 SC 621, mandates that the State cannot retreat from an assurance once individuals have relied on it to their detriment. The State's issuance of advertisements under OPS constituted a promise that cannot now be withdrawn by imposing NPS on selected candidates due only to administrative delay.
21. The maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit--no person shall suffer due to the act of a Court or authority--further reinforces the applicants' case. PSC's delay is a State action; candidates cannot be made to suffer disadvantageously due to the State's own failure to timely complete recruitment.
22. I also note that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution guarantee equality and non-discrimination in public employment. Candidates HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 65 :: OA 1466/2023 selected under the same advertisement, same process, and same vacancies cannot be arbitrarily divided into OPS and NPS categories, solely on account of PSC's untimely functioning. Against this factual and legal background, I proceed in Part II to examine each judgment relied upon by the applicants, quoting the relevant observations verbatim to evaluate whether the jurisprudence on OPS versus NPS supports their claim.
23. I first consider the seminal judgment Naveen Kumar Jha v. Union of India, 2012 SCC Online Del 5606, where the Hon'ble Delhi High Court confronted was confronted with a situation where the petitioner had participated in a recruitment process during the currency of the Old Pension Scheme, yet the appointment letter was delayed due to reasons attributable solely to the authorities. The issue before the Court was whether such departmental delay could result in subjecting the employee to the New Pension Scheme. The Court thoroughly examined the doctrine that service conditions crystallize on the date of commencement of recruitment and further emphasized that candidates cannot be penalized for administrative lapses of authorities. In the present OA, the applicants are similarly aggrieved because their HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 66 :: OA 1466/2023 appointments were delayed by the PSC despite completing examinations before the enforcement of NPS. Thus, this judgment has direct applicability. The Hon'ble Court has held as follows:
"9. With respect to the Pension Scheme it assumes importance to note that petitioner's batchmates were issued letters offering appointment in March 2003 and had petitioner likewise been issued a letter offering appointment, he too would have been a member of the old Pension Scheme. As a result of petitioner being offered employment in April 2004, he has perforce been made a member of the new Pension Scheme."
The Court further observed:
"11. We highlight in the instant case the fortuitous circumstance of the petitioners being made to join as Assistant Commandant on 08.08.2005 is not the result of anything created by the petitioners but is a result of a supine indifference and negligence on the part of the ITBP officials."
And most importantly:
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 67 :: OA 1466/2023 "18. On the subject of the petitioner being entitled to the old Pension Scheme, in similar circumstances, deciding WP(C) No. 10028/2009 Amendra Kumar v. UOI, where the petitioner therein was also similarly deprived the opportunity to join with his batch on account of delay in conducting medical re-
examination, the Court had directed that said writ petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the old Pension Scheme which remained in force till December 31, 2003."
And concluding with:
"19. The petitioner would be entitled to similar benefit and accordingly the next mandamus issued is by way of a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as a member of the pension scheme which remained in vogue till December 31, 2003."
This judgment was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Naveen Kumar Jha, 2013 SCC OnLine SC 1514.
24. In Amarendra Kumar v. UOI, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2565, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court examined whether a candidate, whose HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 68 :: OA 1466/2023 provisional appointment process commenced under the Old Pension Scheme, could be denied such benefit because the formal appointment letter was delayed by the authorities. The Court found that the delay was unjustified and attributable solely to the respondents. It held that the appointment must relate back to the date on which the candidate ought reasonably to have been appointed. This reasoning is directly relevant to the applicants herein, whose selection process had commenced under OPS and whose delay is similarly attributable to PSC. The Court emphasized:
"23. There is an additional ground which persuades us to hold that the respondents have not been fair to the petitioner. It is an admitted position also that the Defined Benefit Pension System of the respondents came to an end on 31st December, 2003."
Further:
"25. The impact of issuance of the appointment letter with effect from 27th April, 2004 would be that the petitioner would be deprived of the benefit of the earlier scheme which came to HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 69 :: OA 1466/2023 an end on 31st December 2003... this could certainly work tremendous financial loss to the petitioner."
The Court held:
"27. The provisional letter of appointment dated 24th November, 2003 does [not] state that the appointment is provisional... the appointment obviously has to relate back to the date of his original appointment."
Finally:
"28. In view of above discussion, it has to be held that the petitioner is deemed to have been regularly appointed with effect from 22nd December, 2003."
25. In Parmanand Yadav v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7274, Hon'ble Delhi High Court again dealt with delay attributable to the authorities in issuing appointment letters. The respondents attempted to deny OPS on the ground that the appointment order was issued after NPS enforcement. The Court reaffirmed that a candidate cannot be prejudiced for delays not attributable to them. The HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 70 :: OA 1466/2023 principles of fairness and equality were emphasized. The reasoning is on all fours with the present matter. The Hon'ble Court has held as follows:
" ... petitioner's batchmates were issued letters offering appointment in March 2003 and had petitioner likewise been issued a letter offering appointment, he too would have been a member of the old Pension Scheme.
... as a result of petitioner being offered employment in April 2004 he has been made a member of the new Pension Scheme. ... the delay was entirely at the end of authorities ... petitioner cannot be deprived of OPS"
26. In Tanaka Ram v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6962,The Hon'ble Delhi High Court extensively analyzed earlier judgments and administrative conduct, holding that all candidates selected under pre- NPS processes must be extended OPS regardless of delayed appointment. The present OA stands fortified by the ratio laid down herein. The Hon'ble Court has held as follows:
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 71 :: OA 1466/2023 "a new Contributory Pension Scheme was introduced ... those offered appointment on 17th December 2003 were covered by OPS whereas those issued appointment only in February 2004 were deprived of OPS.
... petitioners had been selected pursuant to the 2002 examination ... but letters of appointment were delayed due to respondents.
... the BSF itself accepted that delay was attributable to them and extended OPS to all similarly situated persons. ... respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to all the petitioners ... pass consequential orders"
27. In Inspector Rajendra Singh v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7879 , The Hon'ble Court has held as follows:
"... had the petitioners known they would be denied the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, they would not have opted for the service.
... basic terms and conditions of service such as the right to HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 72 :: OA 1466/2023 receive pension ... cannot later be altered to the prejudice of incumbents after commencement of the selection process."
28. This significant decision addressed whether service conditions, including pension rules, could be altered after a candidate had opted for a particular service based on the advertised conditions. The Court held that essential service conditions cannot be changed to the detriment of candidates once the selection process begins. The ratio directly applies to the applicants whose advertisements were issued under OPS.
29. In Niraj Kumar Singh v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11892 judgment, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court undertook a comprehensive review of the entire line of authorities concerning the applicability of the Old Pension Scheme in cases where recruitment processes had commenced prior to the introduction of the New Pension Scheme. The Court noted that not only had it consistently held in earlier matters that candidates who appeared in examinations conducted during the OPS era continued to be entitled to that scheme despite delayed appointments, but even various paramilitary HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 73 :: OA 1466/2023 organisations themselves had accepted this interpretation. The Court took particular note of the communication issued by the Director General of the BSF, wherein the force explicitly admitted that the delay in issuing appointment letters was attributable to the authorities and not to the selected candidates and accordingly directed conversion of all such employees to OPS and transfer of their NPS contributions into GPF. This administrative acknowledgment was treated as a strong supporting circumstance reinforcing the judicial position that NPS cannot be applied retrospectively when recruitment originated under OPS. The decision therefore clearly affirmed that employees whose selection process began before the cut-off date must be given the benefit of OPS.
30. In Shyam Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11891, The Hon'ble Delhi High Court reiterated that the question of whether employees selected under pre-NPS recruitment cycles are entitled to the Old Pension Scheme is no longer a matter requiring fresh determination, since the legal position had already been conclusively settled by multiple earlier judgments. The Court held that even if the appointment orders were issued after NPS came into force, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 74 :: OA 1466/2023 the decisive factor remains the fact that the candidates had qualified and completed the essential components of the selection process prior to the enforcement of the new scheme. The Court emphasised that candidates cannot be deprived of OPS merely because procedural delays on the part of the authorities resulted in delayed issuance of appointment letters. It therefore granted relief by directing the authorities to extend OPS benefits to the petitioners along with all consequential entitlements within the prescribed time. The core ratio of this case is that qualifying prior to NPS and participating in a pre- NPS examination entitles a candidate to OPS notwithstanding delayed appointment.
31. In Chander Veer Singh v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 12439, The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this decision emphasised the principle of parity among all similarly situated personnel within the Central Armed Police Forces and rejected any attempt by the authorities to treat similarly placed employees differently based solely on the fortuity of appointment dates. The Court observed that numerous earlier judgments had already held that those who participated in examinations conducted during the OPS period were HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 75 :: OA 1466/2023 entitled to continued coverage under that scheme even if their appointment letters were delayed. It further noted that the BSF, the Ministry of Home Affairs and several other CAPFs had already accepted this judicial position and issued orders implementing OPS benefits in comparable circumstances. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners, who were identically placed, must also receive OPS and directed extension of the scheme strictly in accordance with the CCS (Pension) Rules. The decision reinforces uniformity and non- discrimination in pension entitlements across the services.
32. In Davinder Singh Brar v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2771, the Hon'ble Court noted that although the advertisement in this case was issued when OPS was in force, the authorities concluded the selection process only after NPS commenced, due entirely to departmental delay. The Court firmly rejected the argument that such delay, for which the applicant was not responsible, could be used to deny him OPS. It held that no distinction can be drawn between those appointed earlier and those appointed later if they all belonged to the same recruitment cycle initiated under OPS. The Court therefore directed that OPS be extended to the petitioner and set aside the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 76 :: OA 1466/2023 impugned denial. The ratio is that administrative delay cannot disqualify an otherwise entitled candidate from OPS. This judgment laid down the clear proposition that the date of advertisement and initiation of the recruitment process is far more decisive than the date of issuance of the appointment letter for determining pension eligibility.
33. The similar issues have been settled in Pawan Kumar & Ors. v.
Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 112. This authoritative and recent decision involved a large batch of seventy writ petitions concerning the same issue of entitlement to OPS where recruitment commenced before NPS. After reviewing an extensive line of judgments, the Delhi High Court held the legal position to be settled beyond dispute: candidates who participated in selection processes initiated before the coming into force of NPS are entitled to OPS even if the appointment orders were issued later. The Court specifically explained that once the advertisement was issued under OPS, and the recruitment process had commenced under that regime, the authorities could not impose NPS retrospectively upon such candidates. It also rejected any artificial distinction sought to be created within similarly HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 77 :: OA 1466/2023 situated groups, including those in the armed forces and CAPFs. The Court found no justification for applying NPS to those whose recruitment originated under OPS and accordingly upheld their entitlement to the older scheme. This judgment forms one of the strongest pillars supporting the present applicants.
34. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Biswa Prakash Jena v. Union of India, (2022) 5 HCC (Del) 319 case strongly reaffirmed the principle that the terms and conditions of service that exist on the date of advertisement become binding and cannot be altered to the detriment of candidates after the recruitment process has concluded. The Court underscored that the petitioners could not be faulted for delays that resulted in their appointment after the cut-off date. It further held that the respondents could not take advantage of their own delay or administrative inefficiency to impose a new pension regime on the petitioners. The Court concluded that the denial of OPS in such circumstances was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This judgment therefore strongly supports the view that pension rights crystallise at the initiation of recruitment and cannot be retrospectively altered.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 78 :: OA 1466/2023
35. In State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this important judgment laid down the doctrine of parity in service jurisprudence, holding that once a particular benefit has been granted to one set of employees who are identically placed, the same benefit must necessarily be extended to all others similarly situated. The Court emphasised that denying such parity amounts to discrimination and is violative of Article 14. This applies with greater force in service matters where identical selection processes, identical recruitment years and identical factual circumstances exist. The principle clearly supports the applicants herein, because their batchmates appointed earlier under the same advertisements are already enjoying OPS, and therefore parity requires the same benefit for them as well.
36. In State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision reiterates the fundamental doctrine of equality among similarly placed employees in service law. The Court held that all employees who stand on equal footing must be treated alike and cannot be subjected to differential treatment merely because one employee approached the court earlier than the other. In other HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 79 :: OA 1466/2023 words, the State cannot deny a benefit to an employee solely on the ground that he or she did not litigate earlier when the benefit has already been judicially recognised for an identically placed group. This doctrinal principle fully applies to the applicants, as many of their counterparts appointed under the same advertisements have already been granted OPS.
37. In State of Rajasthan v. Mahendra Nath Sharma, the Rajasthan High Court held that the pension scheme applicable to a candidate must be determined based on the date of advertisement and initiation of recruitment, not the date of appointment. The Court clarified that once vacancies are advertised under a particular pension regime, the rules then in force become the governing service conditions for all candidates participating in that recruitment. Subsequent changes in pension policy cannot be imposed retrospectively upon candidates whose recruitment began earlier. This principle directly supports the applicants whose advertisements were issued during the OPS era.
38. In Shiv Kumar Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2020, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in this decision held that when HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 80 :: OA 1466/2023 recruitment is initiated under the Old Pension Scheme, the State cannot subsequently apply the New Pension Scheme on the sole ground that the appointment order was issued later. The Court emphasised that pension is a substantive service condition and such conditions crystallise once the recruitment process commences. It declared that NPS cannot be retrospectively imposed upon candidates who responded to advertisements issued during the OPS regime. This reasoning fully aligns with the applicants' case.
39. In Dr. Vijay Kumar Shivgotra v. University of Jammu, TA 23/2025 judgment, the Jammu Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal considered a similar claim where the applicant had been appointed against a vacancy that arose before the introduction of the New Pension Scheme, although the appointment order itself was issued later. The Tribunal held that the employee was entitled to OPS because the vacancy belonged to the pre-NPS period, and the delay in appointment was not attributable to the applicant. The Tribunal accordingly directed the respondents to grant full OPS benefits. This reasoning directly parallels the circumstances of the present applicants and strongly supports their entitlement to OPS.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 81 :: OA 1466/2023
40. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides at considerable length and having perused the entire record produced before this Tribunal, it becomes immediately evident that the pivotal issue in the present matter pertains to whether the applicants, who applied pursuant to advertisements issued in the years 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2009, are to be governed by the Old Pension Scheme or the New Pension Scheme which was introduced with effect from 01.01.2010. The Tribunal notes that the advertisements in question were issued during the subsistence of the Old Pension Scheme, and more importantly, the selection process -- including receipt of applications, scrutiny, evaluation, conducting of examinations and preparation of shortlists
-- was initiated and substantially completed before SRO 400 of 2009 came into force. This chronology is undisputed.
41. The Tribunal further observes that the delay in the declaration of results, forwarding of recommendations and issuance of appointment orders is entirely attributable to the J&K Public Service Commission and the concerned administrative departments. The applicants had completed all formalities required of them well before the enforcement of the New Pension Scheme. It is not the respondents' HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 82 :: OA 1466/2023 case that the applicants contributed in any manner to the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the operation of SRO 400 of 2009 vis-à-vis these applicants is the consequence of administrative delay alone, a factor legally impermissible to prejudice a candidate's vested or accrued rights.
42. This Tribunal is conscious that pension constitutes a fundamental and substantive service condition and is not a mere administrative instruction. The pension scheme applicable on the date of advertisement becomes part of the terms of recruitment, and unless expressly stated otherwise in the advertisement or in a statutory rule, the State cannot alter such terms to the detriment of candidates after the recruitment process has commenced. This principle is deeply embedded in service jurisprudence and repeatedly upheld by constitutional courts across the country.
43. The argument advanced by the respondents that the date of actual appointment alone is determinative for pension entitlement cannot be accepted. Such a narrow interpretation would render the constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 16 nugatory and would unjustly HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 83 :: OA 1466/2023 penalise candidates for delays beyond their control. The Tribunal finds persuasive the consistent judicial view that the "date of advertisement" and the "initiation of recruitment" hold primacy in determining the applicable pension scheme, especially where the delay in issuance of appointment orders arises from the respondents' own administrative processes.
44. This position stands fortified by a long line of judgments wherein the Delhi High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Rajasthan High Court and various benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal have held that OPS benefits cannot be denied to candidates whose recruitment commenced during the OPS regime. Each of these judgments has consistently held that candidates cannot be compelled to suffer adverse consequences of delays that emanate solely from the authorities. The Tribunal notes that many of these judgments have attained finality upon dismissal of Special Leave Petitions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
45. The Tribunal also finds that the doctrine of legitimate expectation squarely applies in the present case. The applicants responded to HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 84 :: OA 1466/2023 advertisements issued under OPS, attended examinations under OPS, and legitimately expected that their service conditions -- including pension benefits -- would be governed by OPS. Nothing in the advertisements suggested that future amendments could retrospectively alter their pension entitlement. The applicants' legitimate expectation is thus founded upon explicit statutory context, established administrative practice, and settled legal principles.
46. Further, the doctrine of promissory estoppel operates against the respondents. By issuing advertisements under OPS and initiating the recruitment process accordingly, the State made an unambiguous representation that the applicants would be governed by the pension regime then in force. The applicants, acting upon this representation, participated in the recruitment process and altered their position irreversibly. The State cannot now contend that by virtue of its own delay, the representation stands nullified.
47. The Tribunal is equally persuaded by the principle that no person shall suffer due to the act of a public authority. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, although originally applicable to judicial delay, has HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 85 :: OA 1466/2023 been consistently applied to administrative delay as well. Where delay is occasioned by a public body, the consequences of such delay must fall upon the authority and not upon the candidate. Thus, the State cannot inflict upon the applicants a less beneficial pension regime solely because of postponement of appointments caused by its own inefficiency.
48. The Tribunal also notes the glaring discriminatory treatment highlighted by the applicants: numerous other candidates appointed under the same advertisements -- in the same disciplines, in the same recruitment cycles -- but whose appointments happened earlier due to faster processing, continue to enjoy the Old Pension Scheme. Treating the applicants differently despite their identical position in the same selection process violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents have not been able to justify this classification on any rational or intelligible basis.
49. The Tribunal finds absolutely no merit in the contention of the respondents that appointment after 01.01.2010 automatically mandates NPS. Such an approach would make the constitutional HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 86 :: OA 1466/2023 guarantee of equality inapplicable to recruitment processes and would reward administrative inefficiency. The Tribunal cannot countenance a situation where two candidates from the same advertisement, competing for the same vacancies, are subjected to two different pension regimes solely due to the inconsistent pace at which the respondents processed the selection files.
50. In applying the ratio of the judgments analysed in Part II, this Tribunal finds that the factual matrix of the present case mirrors the circumstances examined by the Delhi High Court in multiple decisions, all of which have culminated in the grant of OPS where recruitment began before the pension regime changed. The underlying legal principles -- that terms of advertisement govern, that authorities cannot deny OPS due to their own delay, that parity must be ensured among similarly placed employees, and that administrative delay cannot extinguish vested rights -- all apply with equal force to the applicants herein.
51. Moreover, the respondents' reliance on SRO 400 of 2009 is misplaced. The SRO indeed stipulates that employees appointed on or HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 87 :: OA 1466/2023 after 01.01.2010 shall fall under NPS. However, the SRO cannot be interpreted in isolation or applied mechanically without reconciling it with the constitutional mandate of equality, the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, and the jurisprudence holding that substantive conditions of service crystallise upon issuance of advertisement. A statutory rule cannot be interpreted in a manner that defeats constitutional protections or causes manifest injustice.
52. Therefore, upon a holistic consideration of facts, law, doctrine and precedent, the Tribunal concludes that the applicants' entitlement to the Old Pension Scheme stands firmly established. The respondents cannot retrospectively impose the New Pension Scheme on candidates who had already entered the zone of consideration under OPS and whose recruitment was delayed for reasons solely within the domain of the respondents. Any contrary interpretation would result in arbitrariness, discrimination and violation of established principles of service law.
53. In view of the above detailed analysis and for the reasons extensively recorded herein, the Tribunal is of the considered view that the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 88 :: OA 1466/2023 applicants are entitled to the same treatment as other similarly situated persons selected under the same advertisements and that the Old Pension Scheme is the pension regime applicable to them. The Tribunal therefore proceeds to issue consequential directions in the succeeding Part.
54. For the reasons elaborately recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, and upon thorough consideration of the pleadings, submissions, documentary record, statutory provisions and the settled judicial precedents governing the field, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the applicants cannot be deprived of the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme merely because their appointment orders were issued after 01.01.2010, when the undisputed factual position is that the advertisements pursuant to which they applied were issued during the currency of the Old Pension Scheme and the recruitment process had substantially commenced under that regime. The respondents' delay in finalizing the selection process cannot operate to the prejudice of the applicants, particularly when several similarly situated candidates appointed under the same advertisements have been granted OPS. The action of the respondents is thus arbitrary, discriminatory, legally HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 89 :: OA 1466/2023 unsustainable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Original Application succeeds and is allowed.
55. For the reasons recorded hereinabove and in view of the findings returned by this Tribunal, the Original Application is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the applicants as government employees governed by the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), i.e., the pension regime that was in force on the date of issuance of the advertisements under which they had applied and were selected, and shall accordingly convert them from the New Pension Scheme (NPS) to the Old Pension Scheme strictly in accordance with the pension rules applicable prior to the enforcement of SRO 400 of 2009; the respondents shall further transfer the entire NPS corpus, including all contributions of the applicants and employer along with accrued interest, from the PFRDA-regulated accounts into the respective General Provident Fund (GPF) accounts of the applicants by treating their service as covered under OPS from the date of initial appointment; the applicants shall also be extended all consequential benefits flowing from OPS, including qualifying service benefits, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 90 :: OA 1466/2023 pensionary computation under the old rules, family pension, gratuity, death-cum-retirement gratuity, service gratuity and all other retiral advantages associated with the Old Pension Scheme.
56. The respondents shall complete the entire exercise and issue all consequential orders within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to cost.
57. It is further clarified that the relief granted herein is confined exclusively to the applicants before this Tribunal, having regard to the peculiar facts, circumstances and equities arising out of the present Original Application, and shall not, by itself, be treated as laying down a general precedent or conferring any automatic right upon non- applicants or similarly situated persons who are not parties to these proceedings; any such claim, if and when raised, shall be examined independently on its own merits and in accordance with law.
(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV