Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Ghulam Mohd vs D/O Health Ut Of J&K on 2 December, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH
Transfer Application No. 34/2020
Date of Order: This, the 02nd day of December, 2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Between
Ghulam Mohd., Aged 61 years,
S/o Mohammad Sultan,
R/o Gulabgarh Tehsil Mahore,
District- Reasi(J&K).
.....Applicant
-VERSUS-
1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through
Commissioner/Secretary Health and Medical
Education, Department of J&K Govt. Civil
Secretariat Srinagar.
2. Director Health Services, Jammu.
3. Chief Medical Officer, Reasi, District - Reasi.
4. Block Medical Officer, Health and
Family Welfare Mahore.
5. Accountant General,
Rajpura Canal Road, Jammu.
.....Respondents
Advocate for applicant(s): Mr. K. Nirmal Kotwal
Advocate for respondent(s): Mr. Sudesh Magotra, Ld. AAG
T.A. No. 34/2020
Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
2
ORDER
PER MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):
The applicant had initially approached the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu filing the writ petition which was later on transferred to this Tribunal, seeking therein the following reliefs:
"(i) Writ of certiorari seeking quashing of order No. PNRJ-
4/C-1/NPS/514-15 dated 01.07.2019 issued by respondent No. 5 whereby the pension case of the petitioner has been turned down disentitling the petitioner from grant of pension.
(ii) With a further direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as regularized from the date the petitioner had completed seven years of services with all consequential benefits.
(iii) Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents decide the entitlement of petitioner for grant of pensionary and other retiral benefits having due regard to the Judgment and order dated 11.07.2018 passed in SWP No. 2147/2017 titled Ulfat Ara & Ors versus State of J&K & Ors and other connected writ petitions."
The applicant is basically aggrieved with the impugned Order No. PNRJ-4/C-1/NPS/514-15 dated 01.07.2019, whereby Respondent No. 5 has turned down the case of petitioner for grant of pension and retiral benefits.
The applicant was appointed as 'Safaiwala' vide Appointment Order dated 04.07.1988 on consolidated basis against available vacancy. The petitioner in pursuance of the order of appointment joined against the post and discharged T.A. No. 34/2020 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 3 his duties as 'Safaiwala' to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. Thereafter, he attained superannuation from Govt. service on 31.01.2019 after rendering more than 30 years of service. While continuously discharging his duties as 'Safaiwala', the Respondent No. 1 vide Order dated 08.02.2019 accorded sanction for confirmation of the initial appointment of petitioner and further in terms of J&K Civil Services(Special Provisions) Act 2010 accorded sanction for regularization of services of the petitioner by granting relaxation of age. It has been submitted that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 recommended the case of the petitioner to Respondent No. 5 for release of pensionary and other retiral benefits. The recommendation was clear and unambiguous but the Respondent No. 5 illegally and arbitrarily turned down the case of petitioner stating that the petitioner has rendered only 12 months regular service. Applicant has thus submitted that he had been appointed on consolidated basis and continued for more than 30 years without break in service is being deprived of pensionary and other retiral benefits, cannot be worst than daily wager and adhoc employee. Being aggrieved with, he has approached this Tribunal. T.A. No. 34/2020 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 4
2. Respondents have filed their reply, wherein they have averred that the applicant, Sh. Ghulam Mohammad, born on 01-01-1959 was regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2018 vide Government Order No. 144-HME of 2019 and superannuated on 31-12-2018 at the age of 60 Yrs. The retiree had rendered regular service only for a period of 12 months of temporary service and, hence, is covered under Sub clause (a) of Rule 11 of the J&K Civil Service (temporary service) Rules, 1961 which are enunciated under Schedule IX of J&K CSR Vol-II read with S.O 328 dated 24-09-2021. Hence, the applicant is not admissible for pensionary benefits and at the same time his case is not admissible for terminal gratuity. As per S.O 328 of 24th of September 2021 it is provided that, Temporary Govt, employee(s) who is/are appointed or brought on regular establishment on or after 01-01-2010 and retires on superannuation or is discharged from service shall be eligible for gratuity at the rate of 1/3rd of a month's pay for each completed year of his service, provided that he has completed not less than five years continuous service at the time of retirement, discharge or invalidment." This shall be deemed to have been incorporated in the rules w.e.f 01-01-2010, the T.A. No. 34/2020 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 5 date of commencement of defined contributory New Pension Scheme (N.P.S).
As the aforementioned named retiree has rendered only one year of temporary service w.e.f. 01-01-2018 till 31-12- 2018, in view of the rule position stated above, the service rendered by Sh. Ghulam Mohammad is less than five years. Hence, he is not admissible for terminal gratuity. Learned counsel for the respondents has therefore prayed that this petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that Respondent No. 5 without appreciating the Govt. Order No. 144-HME of 2019 dated 08.02.2019, whereby the Respondent No. 1 while according sanction to the confirmation of the initial appointment of petitioner made on 04.07.1988, the case of petitioner was recommended by the Empowered Committee in terms of J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act 2010 sanction for regularization was also accorded. The respondent No. 5 wrongly interpreted the Govt. Order No. 144-HME of 2019 dated 08.02.2019 so far to mean that no benefit of previous service i.e. 30 years on consolidated basis rendered by petitioner is concerned. The impugned T.A. No. 34/2020 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 6 order turning down the case of petitioner by Respondent No. 5 is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in case of State of J&K Vs Mst. Zarina Begum and other connected appears arising out of LPA(SW) No. 158/1996, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that even the daily wagers and adhoc employees who have completed seven years of service from the date of initial engagement would be entitled to regularization. The operating part of the same is reproduced below:
"31. For the reasons mentioned above, we dispose of LPA(SW) No. 239/1996 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in terms of SRO 64 read with Govt. Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 06th of November, 2001. The effective date of regularization would be the date when the petitioners completed seven years of their service. They would also be entitled to arrears from the said date. The consideration be accorded within a period of eight weeks."
4. Further, in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of J&K and Ors. 2003(II) SLJ 475, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of J&K while dealing with the rights of daily wagers for regularization in terms of SRO 64 held that a daily rated worked engaged prior to 31.03.1994 was eligible for T.A. No. 34/2020 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 7 regularization after rendering seven years of service. The said judgement also dealt with the situation where a daily wager may not, strictly speaking, be covered by SRO 64 of 1994 but could be considered for regularization in terms of Govt. Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 06th of November, 2001 which reads as under:
Government Order No: 1285-GAD of 2001 Dated: 06.11.2001 "Whereas, in the writ petition No. SWP 283/94 titled Uttam Singh, (who was working on a class TV post on adhoc basis) V/s State of Jammu & Kashmir and others, and connected writ petitions, the Hon'ble High Court of J&K vide its judgment dated 12.02.1998 inter alia observed as under:-
"I am of the opinion that he becomes entitled to regularization in terms of Rules of 1994. The stand taken by respondent-State that the petitioner was an adhoc employee, and therefore, he would not be entitled to regularization, cannot be sustained. The case of an adhoc employee cannot be worse than a daily rated worker. The observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of "State of Haryana v. Plara Singh", AIR 1992 SC 2130 would also be attracted........"
"...... The petitioner, Uttam Singh, shall be entitled to continuity of service. He would also be entitled to all back wages and other consequential benefits."
Whereas, under the Jammu & Kashmir | Daily Rated Workers Regularization Rules, 1994, a daily rated worker engaged prior to 31.01.1994 is eligible for regularization after seven years of continuous service.
Whereas, a number of appointments have also been made on adhoc basis in different Government Departments and the Government is of the view that their cases also need be considered in the light of the broad principles discussed by the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment referred to above i.e. they be also considered T.A. No. 34/2020 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 8 for regularization after putting in seven years continuous service like daily wagers appointed prior to 31.1.1994.
Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that all adhoc appointees to non-gazetted posts recruited from time to time beyond 29.12.1988 till the date of issue of this order who are still in service be considered for regularization after completing seven years of continuous service from the date of appointment dispensing with reference of posts held by them to Service Selection Board......."
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and, rule position as well as taking into account the judgements delivered by the Hon'ble High Court, in our view, a right, thus exists in favour of the applicant for his consideration for regularization in terms of SRO 64 read with Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001. Accordingly, we are allowing the TA with the following directions to the respondents:
(a) Impugned Order dated 01.07.2019 issued by Respondent No. 5 stands quashed.
(b) to regularize the service of the applicant in terms of SRO 64 read with Govt. Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 06th of November, 2001 from the date when he completed seven years of his service from the initial appointment.
(c) to release all the arrears, pensionary and retiral benefits to the applicant from the said date and fix his pension as per his entitlement.
6. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
T.A. No. 34/2020 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 9
7. Accordingly, T.A. stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.M. JOHRI) (R.S. DOGRA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)
/Sk/
T.A. No. 34/2020
Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR