Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13389

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Ram Mohan Johri, A
Suraj Parkash Bhagat, Hissam Din Shah, Chander Udhey Singh, Wali Mohd. Malik, Vidya Dhar Sharma, Mohd. Maqbool Lone, Abdul Gani Bhat, Mirza Ghulam Mohd Beigh, Manzoor Ahmed Khan, Rattan Lal Zutshi, Hira Lal Dalal, Mohammad. Farooq, Kuldeep Singh Sambyal, Sadhu Ram Bhagat, Zahoor Ahmad Buch, Chaman Lal Bindroo, Ashwani Kumar Parimoo, Mohd. Ashraf Jan, Fida Hussain, Abdul Latif Shinali, Mohidner Singh Jamwal, Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Sheikh, Ghulam Qadir Chroo, Bashir Ahmad Hakim, Tulsi Dass Barmani, Mohd. Shafi Gilkar, Mohd. Ashraf Parimoo – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir, Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt. PHE & I&FC Department – Respondent
TA 8492 of 2020

Advocates:
For the applicants: Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Adv.
For the respondents: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, ld. DAG

Retired employees in in-charge positions are entitled to regularization and benefits as per their service status at retirement.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Promotion and regularization - Retired employees in in-charge positions sought regularization and pensionary benefits post-retirement - Court affirmed the right to regularization as determined by service regulations and previous judgments - Compensation and benefits must reflect the post held at service termination. (Paras 2, 6, 11)

(B) Promotion Procedures - Clarification on eligibility criteria and irregularities in promotion process - Court upheld employees' entitlement based on in-charge service as per established law. (Paras 5, 10)

Facts of the case:
Applicants, retired from the J&K Government Engineering Service, challenged the denial of regularization in Superintending Engineer positions despite service in in-charge capacity.

Findings of Court:
Court directed the respondents to regularize and promote the applicants in accordance with the posts they held as in-charge officials, ensuring all financial benefits are honored.

Issues: Main issues included the entitlement of applicants for regularization as Superintending Engineers and pensionary benefits given the service rendered.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once an officer serves in an in-charge capacity, they hold the right to be regularized and receive the corresponding pay scale attached to the post.

Result: TA allowed, elders directed to promote applicants as claimed.

Table of Content
1. the applicants are retired employees seeking promotion and regularization. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments revolve around the justification for not regularizing applicants post-retirement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. established rights of in-charge officers to regularization. (Para 7 , 8)
4. legal precedents support claims for benefits based on in-charge service. (Para 9 , 10)
5. the final order mandates regularization and benefits to applicants. (Para 11)

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, J.M.

The applicants who are the retired employees of J&K Government Engineering Gazetted Service (Hydraulic Wing) approached the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 539 of 2010 being aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the respondents. After the promulgation of the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019 and the formation of UT of J&K, the case was made over to this Tribunal where it was re-numbered as TA 8492 of 2020. The relief prayed by the applicants are as under :

i) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the Petitioners No:1, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 15 as Executive Engineers with effect from the date they were made I/c Executive Engineers with all consequential benefits;

ii) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to confirm the petitioners against the posts of Superintending Engineers with all consequential benefits with effect from the dates, the posts of Superintending Engineer became available or with effect from the dates the petitioners were made I/c Superintending Engineers. if necessary by relaxation of the rules;

With a further direction to the respondents to regularize the petitioners No:15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 as Chief Engineers w.e.f. the dates they were made 1/c Chief Engineers with all consequential benefits;

ii-a) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the pay scale of Rs.4500-5700 revised to 14300-18300 and further revised to Pay Band of 37400-67000 with Grade Pay of 8700 in favour of the petitioners after their regularization as Superintending Engineers w.e.f. the date the petitioners became I/c Superintending Engineers;

ii-b) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to compute the pensionery benefit of the petitioners afresh b allowing the petitioners the pay scale attached to the posts held by the petitioners at the time of their retirement and to pay to the petitioners the arrears of salary against the posts held by the petitioners at the time of their retirement though in in-charge capacity and to pay to the petitioners arrears salary of the petitioners against the posts of Superintending Engineers/Chief of pensionery benefits also after re- computing the same after re-fixing the Engineers from the date they were made in-charge of the posts;

iii) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent along with cost.

2. The fact of the case is that -

a) The applicants in the present application have retired from service while working as I/c Superintending Engineers or I/c Chief Engineers. Applicants No. 1 to 14, 16, 19 and 22 to 27 were made I/c Superintending Engineers from different dates. Applicants No.15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 were not only made I/c Superintending Engineers but were further made I/c Chief Engineers w.e.f. different dates.

b) Although the applicants had worked as I/c Superintending Engineers and some of them as I/c Chief Engineers also, but after their retirement, they were getting the pensionary benefits of the post of Executive Engineer as they were never confirmed as Superintending Engineers nor they were confirmed as Chief Engineers. During the pendency of the application before this Tribunal, vide order dated 20.9.2023, applicants No. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 have been c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document