Central Administrative Tribunal - Srinagar
Showkat Hussain Lone vs D/O Forests Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir on 5 May, 2026
// 1 // TA/062/5666/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
SRINAGAR BENCH
TA/062/5666/2020
[SWP No.1565/2018]
Reserved on : 20.04.2026
Pronounced on : 05.05.2026
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. M.S. LATIF, MEMBER (JUDL.)
HON'BLE MR. PRASANT KUMAR, MEMBER (ADMN.)
Showkat Hussain Lone (Age 40 years) s/o Nazir Ahmad Lone r/o Rai
Kaprin Shopian (LKashmir)
......Petitioner
For the applicant : Mr. Suhaib F. Bandey
VERSUS
1. State of J&K through Commissioner Secretary to Government, Forest
Department, J&K Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, J&K State, Srinagar.
3. Chief Conservator of Forests, Kashmir-Srinagar.
4. Conservator of Forests, South Circle, Bijbehara (Anantnag).
5. Divisional Forest Officer, Shopian Forest Division, Shopian (Kashmir).
.....Respondents
For the respondents : Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, ld. DAG
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl) The writ petition (SWP No.1565 of 2018), having been filed initially before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the year 2018, came to be transferred to the CAT, Jammu Bench vide order dated 21.08.2020 and accordingly numbered as T.A.5666/2020. TA was admitted on 02.09.2021. Thereafter when CAT Srinagar Bench was commissioned, the matter was transferred to this Bench. The case was first listed before this Bench of CAT on 24.02.2022.
Digitally signed by S KSinha
SK DN: CN=S K Sinha, E=
[email protected]
Reason: I am the author
of this document
Location:
Sinha Date: 2026.05.05
18:02:32+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader
Version: 2025.3.0
// 2 // TA/062/5666/2020
2. Through the medium of instant TA, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:-
"(i) By a Writ of Mandamus, the respondents be commanded/directed to regularize the services of the petitioner forthwith by bringing him on the regular establishment under rules/law governing the subject.
(ii) By a Writ of Mandamus, the respondents be directed to henceforth release the salary of the petitioner in the regular pay scale attached to the post of Class-IV retrospectively.
(iii) By a Writ of Certiorari, impugned consideration order issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Kashmir- Srinagar bearing endorsement No.CCF (K)/LO/2018/545-51 dated 17-05-2018 contained in Annexure (A) to the writ petition may be quashed.
(iv) The Hon'ble Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be pleased to mold itself the relief and grant the same in favour of petitioner as against respondents. Same shall be in consonance with law and justice."
3. The facts of the case, as enunciated by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed on consolidated basis on usual terms and conditions in the Forest Division, Shopian as full time consolidated worker on 29.09.2005 vide Order bearing endorsement No.4498/Consolidated passed by the DFO, Shopian Forest Division, Shopian on the monthly payment of ₹2000/- for the first two years and thereafter vide order No. 6297-98/CW dated 30.03.2007, petitioner's monthly wages enhanced to ₹2550/- with effect from 22.02.2007.
4. The General Administration Department issued a Circular vide No.09-GAD of 2013 dated 06.03.2013, whereby petitioner was sought to be disengaged. The said Circular was challenged by the petitioner in SWP No.1290/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir wherein he also claimed for his regularization. However, the said circular was made inapplicable to the petitioner's case and, as such, petitioner got Digitally signed by S K Sinha continued. Subsequently, the said writ petition was disposed of by the SK DN: CN=S K Sinha, E= [email protected] Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Sinha Date: 2026.05.05 18:02:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 // 3 // TA/062/5666/2020 Hon'ble High Court vide judgment and order dated 23.04.2014 with the directions to the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioner's claim for regularization (Annexure-D). When no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed contempt petition in the writ petition In reply to contempt petition, respondents filed consideration order No.CCF (K) LO/2015/788-92 dated 09.09.2015 wherein respondent stated that the claim of the petitioner was considered pursuant to the Hon'ble court directions passed vide order dated 23.04.2014, but was found not coming under the purview of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, as such claim for regularization of the petitioner has been rejected.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said order in SWP No.2129/2016. While deciding the said writ petition on 29.12.2016, the Hon'ble court has been pleased to controvert the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is not working, but the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe that the petitioner is working against the vacant sanctioned post and accordingly, respondent No.3 (respondent No.2 in TA) was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services in the light of communication of the Divisional Forest Officer, Shopian Forest Division, Srinagar addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Kashmir, Srinagar (Annexure-F)
6. As the respondents did not comply the said orders, petitioner was constrained to seek initiation of contempt proceedings vide Contempt Petition No.182/2017. In response, respondents filed consideration order, which is impugned herein. The respondents have not given any credence to the all-important fact that the petitioner has been working in the department for last more than thirteen years.
Digitally signed by S KSinha
SK DN: CN=S K Sinha, E=
[email protected]
Reason: I am the author
of this document
Location:
Sinha Date: 2026.05.05
18:02:32+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader
Version: 2025.3.0
// 4 // TA/062/5666/2020
7. Petitioner challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:-
(i) This is 3rd writ petition being filed by the petitioner for the same purpose viz for seeking regularization of his services. Pursuant to the orders passed in the first writ petition bearing SWP No.1290/2013, the claim was rejected on the plea that the petitioner's case did not come within the purview of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010. The said order came under challenge in SWP No. 2129/2016 and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 29.12.2016 directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, J&K to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services and not for rejection of his claim. Irony of the matter is that the direction was given to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, J&K and not to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Kashmir who has passed the impugned order, which action on the part of Respondent No.3 is illegal, unwarranted and contrary to the Hon'ble court's orders. As such, the impugned order is non-est having no sanction of law in view of the fact that the order, having regard to the judgment dated 19.06.2016 passed in SWP No.2129/2016, has not been passed by the concerned authority.
(ii) The impugned order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that in the second SWP No.2129/2016, it was the Digitally signed by S K Sinha SK DN: CN=S K Sinha, E= [email protected] Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Sinha Date: 2026.05.05 18:02:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 // 5 // TA/062/5666/2020 order of the Chief Conservator of Forests that was challenged and while disposing of the said writ petition, the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to direct the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services.
As the said direction has not been complied with by the concerned authority, the same amounts to contempt of court on the part of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, J&K State. In any case, as the impugned order is an illegal order, as such petitioner is within his rights to challenge the same so as to seek quashment thereof by this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) That nevertheless, the Respondent No.3 toed his earlier technique to reject the claim of the petitioner in spite of the fact that this time, petitioner is fulfilling the eligibility criteria of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 as he is a Matriculate and has more than seven years of consolidated services at his back. He is continuing in the department since his appointment was made way back in the year 2005 and also stands appointed against a clear vacancy by the competent officer/authority. The impugned order is a fabricated order, which was managed under pressure from the present DFO, otherwise the case is well settled in the communication forming Annexure (G) to SWP No.2129/2016 as rightly observed by the Hon'ble Court Digitally signed by S K Sinha SK DN: CN=S K Sinha, E= [email protected] Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Sinha Date: 2026.05.05 18:02:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 // 6 // TA/062/5666/2020 in its order/judgment dated 29.12.2016. On this score, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
(iv) Rejecting claim of the petitioner is unwarranted, illegal and also unconstitutional. The matter involves livelihood of the petitioner alongwith his family. The respondents cannot be allowed to adopt hire and fire policy, which stands deprecated by the Hon'ble Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The respondents are extracting work from the petitioner, but are paying him meager wages, which is illegal. The action on the part of respondents is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice.
(v) The petitioner's claim is well within the ambit of SRO 64 of 1994 as well as the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 and as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed as it has the effect of depriving the petitioner of his right to employment and right to life, which has no meaning without means of livelihood. The petitioner completed more than thirteen long year service period in the department and he cannot be thrown out at any cost. The impugned order, on this ground also deserves to be quashed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed written arguments with case law/judgments in support of his case and submitted as under:- Digitally signed by S K Sinha
SK DN: CN=S K Sinha, E=
[email protected]
Reason: I am the author
of this document
Location:
Sinha Date: 2026.05.05
18:02:32+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader
Version: 2025.3.0
// 7 // TA/062/5666/2020
(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted in the written arguments, that it is trite law that any order passed by any authority in spite of the knowledge of the interim order of the Court is of no consequence and remains a nullity. The petitioner has laid reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Manohar Lal (D) vs. Ugrasen (D), reported in 2010(11) SCC 557, para 23 to 28 thereof reads as under:-
"23. In Mulraj Vs. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj, AIR 1967 SC 1386, this Court considered the effect of action taken subsequent to passing of an interim order in its disobedience and held that any action taken in disobedience of the order passed by the Court would be illegal. Subsequent action would be a nullity.
24. In Surjit Singh Vs. Harbans Singh, AIR 1996 SC 135, this Court while dealing with the similar issue held as under:
"In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. If we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy. When the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seisin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. The Court, in these circumstances has the duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes."
25. In All Bengal Excise Licensees Association Vs. Raghabendra Singh & Ors, AIR 2007 SC 1386, this court held as under:-
"A party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof..... the wrong perpetrated by the respondents in utter disregard of the order of the High Court should not be permitted to hold good."
26. In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr. AIR 1996 SC 2005, this court after making reference to many of the earlier judgments held:-
"On principle that those who defy a prohibition ought not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them."
27. In Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar Vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund, AIR 2008 SC 901, this Court while dealing with the similar issues held that even a Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the event of coming to the conclusion that a breach to an order of restraint had taken place, may bring back the parties to the same position as if the order of injunction has not been violated.
28. In view of the above, it is evident that any order passed by any authority in spite of the knowledge of the interim order of Digitally signed by S K Sinha the court is of no consequence as it remains a nullity."
SK DN: CN=S K Sinha, E=
[email protected]
Reason: I am the author
of this document
Location:
Sinha Date: 2026.05.05
18:02:32+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader
Version: 2025.3.0
// 8 // TA/062/5666/2020
(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present impugned order dated 17.05.2018, the respondents have attempted to deny their own record by terming the Annexure-G to SWP No.219/2016 as wrongly issued. This deliberate change of stance demonstrates clear arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, especially when the said annexure was within the knowledge of the respondents when the order dated 09.09.2015 was passed. In this regard, the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case titled Anoop M. & Others vs. Gireeshkumar T.M. & Others reported in (2025) I Supreme Court Cases 729 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"We, therefore, have no hesitation in placing the blame for this entire imbroglio on the KPSC as it laid the genesis for this litigation owing to its changing stances at different points of time. A State instrumentality seized of the solemn responsibility of making selections to public services must maintain a high standard of probity and transparency and is not expected to remain nebulous as to its norms or resort to falsehoods before the Court, contrary to what it had stated in its earlier sworn affidavits. We can only hope that the Kerala Public Service Commission learns from this experience and desists, at least in future, from trifling with the lives, hopes and aspirations of candidates who seek public employment."
9. Neither reply nor written arguments has been filed by the respondents despite having been given ample opportunities.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the law, in absence of any counter or reply from the respondents, whatever has been mentioned in the petition is to be taken as admitted by the respondents.
11. Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, learned DAG submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, while disposing of the writ Digitally signed by S K Sinha SK DN: CN=S K Sinha, E= [email protected] Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Sinha Date: 2026.05.05 18:02:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 // 9 // TA/062/5666/2020 petition bearing No.1290/2013 filed by the petitioner vide order dated 23.04.2014, already a direction was given to the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioner's claim for regularization in the light of averments made in the petition, appended thereto, the rules occupying the field. He submits that the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria, as has been laid down, as the petitioner had not completed seven years of service from the date of engagement. The order impugned was passed as the petitioner does not come within the purview of J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010.
12. As regards the present status of the petitioner, Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, learned DAG informed the court that the petitioner is continuing in the capacity in which he was engaged.
13. The judgements referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in our humble opinion, are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
14. Mr. Suhaib F. Bandey, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Jaggo vs Union of India & Ors (SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024) passed on 20.12.2024, wherein their Lordships have held as under:-
Where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad- hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.5, it was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over Digitally signed by S K Sinha SK DN: CN=S K Sinha, E= [email protected] Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Sinha Date: 2026.05.05 18:02:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 // 10 // TA/062/5666/2020 a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee."
Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed certain directions in the case titled Bhola Nath vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. decided on 30.01.2026, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"...14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization. II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny. IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, constitutional governance. dignity and V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment."
15. Perusal of the order impugned reveals that the petitioner was not eligible under the ambit of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 for seeking his regularization and it was for this reason the order impugned was passed. The order impugned, in our humble estimation, is well reasoned as the reason for non-regularization of his consolidated Digitally signed by S K service is well spelt out.
Sinha
SK DN: CN=S K Sinha, E=
[email protected]
Reason: I am the author
of this document
Location:
Sinha Date: 2026.05.05
18:02:32+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader
Version: 2025.3.0
// 11 // TA/062/5666/2020
16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the contents of the TA and the annexures on file.
17. The instant TA is disposed of by providing that the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Jaggo vs Union of India & Ors (SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024) and in the case titled Bhola Nath vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. decided on 30.01.2026, in case there is no legal impediment and the petitioner fulfills the criteria as laid down in the above referred two judgments.
18. While parting, since petitioner is working from the year 2005 in the capacity in which he was engaged, the petitioner and his family must have adjusted to the needs on the meager income of the petitioner. The respondents to take humanitarian view as well while considering the case of the petitioner as the petitioner has put his youth in the department by giving his blood and sweat.
19. TA is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PRASANT KUMAR) (M.S. LATIF)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
sks/-
Digitally signed by S K
Sinha
SK DN: CN=S K Sinha, E=
[email protected]
Reason: I am the author
of this document
Location:
Sinha Date: 2026.05.05
18:02:32+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader
Version: 2025.3.0