The denial of regularization to similarly situated employees constitutes discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, justifying judicial intervention to restore equitable treatment.

ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member-J)

1. The instant petitions filed by the applicants initially before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir came to be transferred to this Tribunal in view of Notification No. GSR.267(E) dated 29-04-2020 read with Notification No. G.S.R 317(E) dated 28-05-2020 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions(Department of personnel & Training).

2. The short question involved in the instant TAs/ petitions filed by the applicant is that as to whether the respondents- authorities can discriminate viz-a-viz similarly placed employees for the purpose of regularization of their services and if not weather the action impugned of the respondent- Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in withdrawing the order of regularization of the applicant allowed vide order No.101/3045/8385-89 dated 27-02-2015 as Junior Assistant notionally w.e.f 20-08-2007 and monetarily with immediate effect vide order impugned bearing No. 101/3045/8519-22 dated 09-03-2015 is legally tenable and justified.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the applicant with requisite educational and technical qualification was initially engaged as orderly in the office of Dy. Commissioner Doda on temporary basis along with seven more persons for a period of six months w.e.f 01/01/1998, thereafter the applicant came to be promoted/engaged as junior assistant by the Dy. Commissioner, Doda keeping in view the technical qualification of the applicant vide order no. 731-34/PA(T) dated 06/05/2000 and since then the applicant is discharging his duties in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Doda against clear vacancy of junior assistant initially being paid out of funds available for army cantonment staff and thereafter against the available vacancy of junior assistant in the office/organization of Deputy Commissioner, Doda in regular pay scale.

4. Mr. F.A.Natnoo learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that since the similarly situated person including one Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma engaged in District Jammu have approached the Hon’ble high Court by way of filing SWP No. 1400/1996 seeking direction to treat him as permanent employee and allow him benefits , as such the writ petition was finally disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 06-09-2000 by observing that since the petitioner therein is continuously allowed to work thus cannot be termed as working on a temporary basis and has thus directed for allowing him the benefits of in-situ promotion in terms of SRO 14 of 1996. It is profitable to reproduce the relevant extract of the judgment referred by the learned counsel as under:-

“ If that being so ,the contention of the petitioner stands reinforced that he is working against a permanent vacancy. This being the position, the grievance of the petitioner is justified and he cannot be termed as temporary employee, specially having worked for more than three years, which earns him the status of quasi- permanent.

I make the order accordingly”

5. Learned counsel has submitted that the applicant being similarly situated employee of district Doda has thus also approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of filing SWP No. 2025/2009 which has been transferred to this Tribunal and numbered as TA 5528/2021 wherein the applicant has interalia sought for the following reliefs:-

i. Respondents be directed to treat the petitioner as permanent/quasi permanent employee in the Revenue Department of State of J&K holding the status of Junior Assistant and entitled to all the