SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14018

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
Chanderdeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
TA/6988/2020|SWP/589/2017|SWP 671/2014



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Surjeet Singh Andotra
For the Respondents: Hunar Gupta

The State cannot deny regularization to a long-serving ad-hoc or consolidated employee under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, merely on technical grounds such as the absence of a sanctioned post, particularly when identical treatment has been granted to similarly situated employees.

Headnote:(A) Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 - Section 5 - Regularization of consolidated/ad-hoc employees - Petitioner serving as Watch and Ward Chowkidar for over fourteen years without break - Claim for regularization rejected by department citing recruitment rules and lack of sanctioned post - Tribunal held that the Special Provisions Act, 2010 is a beneficial and remedial legislation - Long-standing service justifies regularization - Selective regularization of similarly situated individuals violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Paras 11, 14, 15 and 17)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant was engaged as a Watch and Ward Chowkidar in 2002 on a consolidated basis. Having served for over fourteen years continuously, the Applicant sought regularization. Upon receiving no response, the Applicant approached the High Court, which directed the authorities to consider the case under the 2010 Act. The authorities rejected the plea, stating the appointment was not against a sanctioned post. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found the rejection arbitrary and discriminatory. It observed that the state cannot reject the rights of long-serving employees on technical grounds. Respondents were directed to regularize the petitioner’s service in Class-IV retrospectively from the completion of seven years’ service.

Issues: Whether the denial of regularization to a long-serving consolidated employee, despite the provisions of the 2010 Act and the regularization of others similarly situated, is legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Beneficial statutes like the 2010 Act must receive a purposive interpretation. The state cannot exploit employees through long-term consolidated appointments and subsequently deny regularization by asserting the posts were not sanctioned, especially when parity is violated regarding other employees.

Result: Transfer Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background of the case regarding regularization claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. assessment of long continuous service and failure of administrative compliance. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. application of the special provisions act and the doctrine of equality. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. final directions for regularization and benefit of service. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP / WPC/589/2017 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.6988/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

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

a) Quash impugned Order No. 35-SMD of 2016 dated 27.04.2016 issued by respondent no. 2.

b) Direct the official respondents to regularize the petitioner in Class-IV as has been done in case of similarly situated watch and ward Chowkidars in Social Welfare department namely Ashwani Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, and Dhanter Singh.

c) Regularize the petitioner retrospectively w.e.f the completion of 7 years with all consequential and monetary benefits etc.

d) Any other order/orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case may also very kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

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

a) The applicant is a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and a citizen of India, claiming entitlement to protection of his legal, statutory, and constitutional rights under the Constitution of India and the laws governing service conditions in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

b) The applicant was initially engaged by the Social Welfare Department as a Watch and Ward Chowkidar on a consolidated honorarium of ₹800 per month vide order dated 08.07.2002 issued by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Kathua, for a period of 60 days in the first instance. Subsequently, his engagement was continued on consolidated basis vide order dated 24.09.2002. Since then, the applicant has continued to render uninterrupted service in the same capacity, and his consolidated remuneration has gradually increased, though he continues to remain outside the regular establishment of the department.

c) It is the specific case of the applicant that he has continuously worked for more than fourteen years without any break, discharging duties identical in nature to those performed by regular Class-IV employees, and that his services have been utilized by the department on a sustained and regular basis. According to the applicant, there existed vacant posts of Class- IV (Orderly) in the office of CDPO, Kathua, against which he possessed the requisite eligibility and experience for regularization.

d) After rendering more than nine years of continuous service, the applicant submitted a formal representation on 02.01.2011 seeking regularization as a Class-IV employee against the available vacancies. As no response was received, the applicant again approached the departmental authorities, whereupon his claim was forwarded by the competent authority on 25.08.2011 to the State Mission Director, ICDS, recommending consideration of his case in view of his long and unblemished service.

e) Despite repeated representations, no decision was taken, compelling the applicant to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court by filing SWP No. 671/2014. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 01.12.2015, whereby the Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for regularization strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, and to pass appropriate orders within a stipulated period.

f) It is asserted that instead of granting meanin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top