The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of continuous service for the purpose of regularization and the condonation of breaks in service, influencing the decision on the regularization date.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. This intra court appeal by the appellants is directed against the judgment dated 31.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“the writ-court”] in SWP No. 130/2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants herein has been partly allowed whereby the order of regularization of the appellants has been set-aside and they have been held eligible for regularization upon completion of seven years of continuous service w.e.f. 01.09.2013, 01.03.2013 and 26.04.2013 respectively. Writ court has, thus, directed the respondent-University to re-visit the order of regularization of the appellants and pass speaking order in the light of the observations made in the judgment.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, it is necessary to set out few facts germane to the disposal of this appeal.

3. The appellants came to be engaged as Junior Assistants on a consolidated salary w.e.f. 11.06.2002, 16.07.2002 and 20.07.2002 respectively. They continued in temporary service of the University for some time, but remained out of action for almost one and a half year till they were re-engaged by the University vide its orders dated 01.09.2006, 26.04.2006 and 01.03.2006 respectively. The appellants like the private respondents completed seven years ad hoc service on consolidated basis and, thus, became eligible for regularization in terms of the decision taken by the University of Jammu on the analogy of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 (in short “the Act of 2010”).

4. The Vice-Chancellor of the University constituted a Committee to screen the service records of the persons working on contractual basis, who had completed seven years of service and had become eligible for regularization. The Committee after deliberation recommended the regularization of the appellants herein on the ground that they too had completed seven years service on ad hoc basis. As is pleaded by the appellants in the petition, the University even issued a formal order of regularization of the petitioners but the same was later on kept on hold pending opinion of the Financial Advisor of the University. This is how the matter came to be referred to the Financial Advisor of the University who opined that the Provisions of the Act of 2010 were not applicable to the University. However, the University could take a view in formulating a suitable policy on the analogy of the Act of 2010.

5. After receipt of the opinion from the Financial Advisor, the University realized that the order dated 28.10.2011, whereby the services of the appellants had been directed to be regularized, was contrary to the opinion of the Financial Advisor, as such, the said decision was kept in abeyance until the University formulated a suitable policy.

6. The University did formulate a policy in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 2010. As could be seen, under Item No. 72.47, of this agenda note of the decision of the Vice-Chancellor to regularize the services of the contractual appointees of the University working as Junior Assistants was placed before the University Council for approval. It appears that University Council resolved that the matter in respect of regularization of the consolidated Junior Assistants be referred to the Financial Advisor of the University with full facts for its considered advice.

7. This is how the matter again went to the Financial Advisor, who while conveying his concurrence to the proposal of the University made the regularization of the incumbents subject to the conditions that they had more than seven years of continuous service without any break at their back. Upon receipt of the concurrence from the Financial Advisor, the University Council issued an order dated 17.08.2013, ordering the regularization of the appellants herein who stood at serial nos. 9, 10 & 11 of the said order w.e.f. 08.08.2013, i.e. t