Retrospective notional appointment entitles actual salary for worked period, promotion parity, and pension conversion; partial compliance invalid.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -

1) Directing the respondents to issue corrigendum to order no. DSEJ/Legal/50017-24 dated 12.03.2022 to the effect that applicants (1,2,4,5,6) and No.3 are entitled to monetary benefits from 14.07.2010 and 04.10.2012 respectively.

II) Commanding the respondents to place applicants at the appropriate place in the seniority list treating their appointment date from 06.07.2005.

II) Commanding the respondents to promote applicants to the post of Lab Assistant ahead of Junior officials like Mohd. Munsha, Kuldeep Singh, Sham Singh, Vikas Bali and Others who have been admittedly appointed after the appointment of applicants.

IV) Directing the respondents to allot G.P fund account number so that the NPS amount deposited by the applicants from 2010 is transferred to the new G.P fund account.

V) Directing the respondents to finalize the pension case of the applicant no. 6 who stands retired in the year 2020.

VI) To pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the present set of circumstances.

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings, are as follows: -

a) The genesis of the present dispute traces back to the year 1998, when the respondent authorities invited applications for filling up various Class-IV posts in different districts of the Jammu Division. The applicants, being eligible, duly applied pursuant to the said notification.

b) The selection process, however, was conducted by the respective Chief Education Officers in complete disregard of the prescribed criteria. Upon noticing serious irregularities, the Director School Education (respondent no.2) placed the select list in abeyance vide order dated 05.07.1999. Surprisingly, the said corrective order was reviewed and withdrawn on 24.04.2000, thereby validating an otherwise illegal selection process.

c) This action gave rise to a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being SWP No. 2668/1999 (Satya Devi v. State & Ors.), which were collectively allowed by the Hon’ble High Court on 23.05.2000, quashing the illegal selections. Instead of implementing the judgment in letter and spirit, the Government issued a fresh advertisement on 26.09.2000, compelling the applicants to re-apply.

d) Thereafter, vide Government Order No. 556-Edu of 2002 dated 11.04.2002, the very same illegally appointed persons were re-engaged on a consolidated honorarium of %1200/- per month, pending final selection. Shockingly, without completing any fresh selection process, the Government issued Government Order No. 383-Edu of 2003 dated 04.04.2003, regularizing these backdoor appointees.

e) The said regularization was again challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being SWP No. 961/2003 (Adil Akhter Shah & Ors.), which culminated in a judgment dated 31.12.2007. The State preferred LPA No. 49/2008, which was decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 30.07.2009, directing the Government to appoint eligible litigants against 417 sanctioned posts within a stipulated time.

f) In compliance thereof, Government Order No. 440-Edu of 2010 dated 13.05.2010 was issued. Pursuant thereto, applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were appointed as Lab Bearers vide orders dated 14.07.2010, whereas applicant no.3 was appointed vide order dated 04.1