Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5411
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
D. S. Mahra, J, Prasant Kumar, A
Bashir Ahmad Dar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
T.A. No. 352 OF 2022 | SWP No. 2050/2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S F Bandey
For the Respondents: Mr. Waseem Gul, GA
Litigants should not suffer for judicial delays; entitled to notional appointment and seniority from the date of similar appointments, excluding monetary benefits.
Headnote:(A) J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1996 - Notional appointment - Applicants appointed as Patwari in 2010 sought notional appointment from 2002 due to judicial delays - The delay was not attributable to applicants, thus entitled to notional seniority and benefits - The court emphasized that no litigant should suffer due to court proceedings. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Judicial Proceedings - The principle that a litigant should not suffer due to the pendency of a case in court is reaffirmed, allowing for retrospective benefits in cases of delay caused by judicial orders. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicants participated in a common selection process for Patwari positions in 2000, but their appointments were delayed until 2010 due to an interim order in a related writ petition. They sought notional appointment from 2002, similar to candidates from other districts.
Findings of Court:
The applicants are entitled to notional appointment from 2002, along with seniority and service benefits, but not to back wages due to the principle of 'no work, no pay.'
Issues: The main issues included whether the applicants were entitled to notional appointment from an earlier date and the implications of judicial delays on their appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay in the applicants' appointment was solely due to judicial proceedings and not their fault, thus they are entitled to notional benefits as per the established legal principles.
Result: The application is allowed; the impugned order is set aside.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with appropriate reference indicators:
-
The court emphasized that litigants should not suffer due to judicial delays and are entitled to notional appointments and seniority from the date similar appointments were made, excluding monetary benefits (!) .
-
The delay in appointment was solely due to judicial proceedings and was not attributable to the applicants, who participated in the same selection process as others. Therefore, they are entitled to notional appointment from the date when similarly situated candidates from other districts were appointed (!) (!) .
-
The court clarified that benefits such as seniority and appointment can be granted retrospectively or notionally in cases where delays are caused by judicial orders, and no monetary benefits are to be awarded for periods prior to actual appointment (!) .
-
The applicants are entitled to notional appointment from the date other candidates from their batch were appointed, along with notional seniority and service benefits, but without back wages or monetary compensation for the period before actual appointment (!) .
-
The tribunal directed the respondents to grant the applicants notional appointment, seniority, and associated benefits from the specified date within a stipulated timeframe, ensuring that the principles of fairness and justice are upheld in light of judicial delays (!) .
-
The order sets aside the previous decision rejecting the applicants' claim and mandates the respondents to implement the notional benefits, including increments and seniority, excluding monetary benefits, within two months of receipt of the order (!) .
If you need further assistance or specific legal analysis, please let me know.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's reasoning on interim orders. (Para 10) |
| 2. final order granting notional benefits. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER
HON’BLE MR. D. S. MAHRA MEMBER (J)
01. The Service Selection Board (SSB) issued an advertisement dated 26.09.2000 inviting applications for the post of Patwari across various districts of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. For District Budgam, 89 vacancies were earmarked. While the selection process was completed and final selection lists were issued for other districts, the selection list for District Budgam was withheld due to the pendency of SWP No. 2081/2000 filed by some of the candidates, in which an interim order dated 26.12.2000 was passed by the Hon’ble High Court, directing the respondents not to finalize the selection for District Budgam.
02. As a result of the said interim direction, the final selection list for District Budgam could not be published. The selected candidates from other districts, however, were appointed on 19.06.2002. SWP No. 2081/2000 was ultimately dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 31.01.2008, thereby paving the way for the conclusion of the selection process for District Budgam. The applicants were appointed subsequently, on 21.10.2010.
03. Following their appointment, the applicants submitted representations before the respondents seeking notional appointment from the year 2002—the date on which similarly situated candidates from other districts were appointed—on the ground that the delay in their appointment was solely due to the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition and the interim order passed therein, for which they were not responsible. However, the respondents failed to take any decision on the said representations, prompting the applicants to file SWP No. 2143/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir.
04. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 25.11.2014, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants within a stipulated time. In pursuance of the said order, the respondents considered the matter and rejected the applicants’ claim by way of order dated 08.04.2015. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the applicants filed SWP No. 2050/2015, which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and re- numbered as T.A. No. 352/2022.
05. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the selection process was conducted through a common examination for all districts. However, due to the pendency of SWP No. 2081/2000 and the interim order passed therein, the selection process for District Budgam could not be finalized. He argued that the delay in appointment of the applicants was not attributable to them, as they were not even parties to the said writ petition. He contended that the applicants are entitled to notional appointment from the date when similarly placed candidates from other districts were appointed, i.e., in 2002.
06. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the applicants were actually appointed only in 2010, they are not entitled to any notional benefit from 2002. He further submitted that under Rule 24 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1996 the applicants are not entitled to notional benefits, particularly in view of the fact that the selection was held up due to judicial proceedings.
07. Heard Learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
08. It is a matter of record that the applicants participated in the common selection process initiated by the advertisement dated 26.09.2000 and were duly selected for the post of Patwari in District Budgam. It is also a matter of record that the final result for District Budgam could not be declared due to the interim order dated 26.12.2000 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 2081/2000. Consequently, the applicants’ appointments were delayed until 2010, while the similarly situated candidates from other districts were appointed in 2002. The d
