2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9165

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Ram Mohan Johri, ACJ
Dr Muzaffar Hussain Mintoo – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
Transferred Application No. 406 of 2022|SWP No. 1979/2017|T.A. No. 406/2022

Regularization under the Act is prospective unless seven years have elapsed; where administrative delay caused late regularization, retroactive regularization from 20.01.2012 with pensionary benefits is permissible.

Headnote:(A) Laws and sections relevant to the case: Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 - Section 5 (Regularization of ad hoc or contractual or consolidated appointees); Section 3 (Application) and the definitions therein; proviso to Clause V of Section 5 (regularization shall have effect from the date of such regularization, irrespective of seven years); Empowered Committee under Government Order No. 1423-GAD of 2009; Government Order No. 48-HME of 2012; Government Order No. 582-HME of 2014; Jammu and Kashmir Education Indian System of Medicines (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2006 - Rule 5 (Qualification and Method of Recruitment) read with Schedule II (Medical Officer posts). (Quoted references) “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force or any judgment or order of any court or tribunal, the adhoc or contractual or consolidated appointees referred to in Section 3 shall be regularized on fulfillment of the following conditions, namely;” (para 3/Submission of rules) “the regularization of the eligible adhoc or contractual or consolidated appointees under this Act shall have effect only from the date of such regularization, irrespective of the fact that such appointees have completed more than seven years of service on the appointed date or thereafter, but before such regularization;” (para 4(v)) Government Order No. 1423 - GAD of 2009 (Empowered Committee to scrutinize adhoc/contractual/consolidated appointments); Government Order No. 48 - HME of 2012 (regularization of Medical Officers under ISM); Government Order No. 582 - HME of 2014 (regularization sanction). (All cited in judgment)

(B) Key legal principles and points discussed: Regularization under the Act is governed by the enforceable conditions in Section 5; the proviso to Clause V makes the regularization with effect from the date of regularization mandatory, even if seven years have been completed earlier; delay in regularization due to administrative inefficiency can justify retroactive regularization from 20.01.2012 with pensionary benefits; the State cannot discriminate or treat similarly situated employees differently, violating equality guarantees under constitutional principles (Articles 14 and 16 referenced in arguments). “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary…” and “These conditions contained in Section 5 … are mandatory in nature, unless they are fulfilled, no right would accrue to such an employee for regularization of his services.” (paras cited) The court emphasizes the applicant’s entitlement to consequential benefits for delay caused by the State, and that the regularization date can be retroactive where delay is attributable to departmental inefficiency; “the State cannot be allowed to exploit the Applicant” and the applicant should not be penalized for the State’s lapses.

(C)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, appointed as Medical Officer (Contractual) in Indian System of Medicines in 2001, had his name at Serial No. 62 of the Select List; peers who were junior (Serial Nos. 70, 96, 110, 116, 121 & 132) were regularized by Government Order No. 48-HME of 2012 dated 20.01.2012, while the applicant’s regularization was deferred and stayed pending verification. Empowered Committee cleared the applicant for regularization on 09.09.2011 (Serial No. 3 in that list). The regularization was finally sanctioned on 17.10.2014 (Government Order No. 582-HME of 2014). The applicant challenged the delay and sought retroactive regularization from 20.01.2012 and seniority/monetary consequences.

(D) Findings of Court /

Ratio Decidendi: (i) The Empowered Committee duly cleared the applicant for regularization on 09.09.2011; (ii) The 20.01.2012 regularization order omitted the applicant’s name due to lack of verified documents, while juniors were regularized; (iii) Sanction ultimately issued on 17.10.2014; (iv) The delay in regularization was due to departmental inefficiency in verifying documents timely; (v) The proviso to Section 5 Clause V is mandatory and the right to regularization accrues from the date of regularization; (vi) The petitioner is entitled to consequential regularization from 20.01.2012 and the period must be counted toward pensionary and other service benefits; (vii) The TA is allowed to the extent of granting retroactive regularization and related benefits; (viii) The State’s unequal handling violates equality guarantees; (ix) The final disposition is that the applicant be deemed regularized from 20.01.2012 and the matter disposed with directions for benefits accordingly. (E)

Issues: (i) Whether regularization could be made retroactive to 20.01.2012 in light of the proviso to Section 5; (ii) Whether delays in verification justify retroactive regularization and pensionary benefits; (iii) Whether there was any improper discrimination against the applicant vis-à-vis juniors; (iv) Whether the order granting regularization in 2014 was proper or should be retroactive. (F) Ratio Decidendi in concise terms: The Act’s mandatory conditions for regularization must be fulfilled; delays caused by administrative inefficiency may justify retroactive regularization to the date when others were regularized (20.01.2012). The proviso to Section 5 is operative, and equal protection requires consistent treatment of similarly situated employees; the applicant is entitled to retroactive regularization and pensionary benefits for the period from 20.01.2012. (G)

Result: “With these directions, the Transferred Application No. 406 of 2022 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, stands vacated.” The petition is allowed to the extent of retroactive regularization from 20.01.2012 and consequential benefits as per law.