Administrative delay in issuing a regularization order cannot be used to deny an eligible employee the benefit of regularization from the date of eligibility, although monetary benefits may be limited to the date of the actual order to balance equities.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.1074/2016 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.52/2022 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

a) Allow the writ petition of the petitioner.

b) Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to quash the Impugned Ist Proviso appended to Section 5 of J&K Civil Services(special Provisions) Act, 2010.

c) Issue Writ in the Nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner as Teacher since the date the petitioner had attained the eligibility i.e. with effect from 23-03-2011 with all further consequential benefits of seniority and as well monetary which may accrue to the petitioner subsequently.

d) Any other writ, order, command or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in her pleadings are as follows: -

a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1074/2016, which stood transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and was registered as T.A. No. 52/2022 before this Tribunal. The applicant, Anuradha, claims retrospective regularization of her services as Teacher under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010.

b) The applicant was initially appointed as Teacher on ad-hoc basis vide Government Order No. 688-GAD of 2001 dated 22.06.2001. Pursuant thereto, she continued to work against available vacancies on the strength of successive extension/adjustment orders issued from time to time in different educational institutions. Subsequently, she was again appointed on ad-hoc/contractual basis as Teacher with effect from 23.03.2004 and continued to discharge her duties uninterruptedly thereafter.

c) It is not in dispute that the applicant suffers from permanent post-polio residual paralysis with 60% disability, on account of which her place of posting was adjusted nearer to her residence. She continued to work continuously without any break and remained in service on the appointed day as defined under the Act of 2010.

d) In terms of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, an Empowered Committee was constituted to scrutinize cases of eligible ad-hoc/contractual employees for regularization. Initially, a list of eligible candidates was notified in the year 2011, wherein the applicant’s name did not figure. Thereafter, vide Notification No. 26 dated 06.07.2012, the Empowered Committee identified additional cases for regularization, and the name of the applicant was included therein at Serial No. 30.

e) The applicant contends that having completed seven years of continuous service as on 23.03.2011, she became eligible for regularization from that date. However, despite being duly identified by the Empowered Committee in the year 2012, her services were ultimately regularized only vide Government Order No. 220-Edu of 2015 dated 12.05.2015, granting her regularization prospectively with effect from the said date.

f) Aggrieved by the denial of retrospective regularization from the date of eligibility,