Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR BENCH, SRINAGAR T.A. 2752/2021 Heard and Reserved on: 07-04-2026 Pronouncement of Order on: 12-05-2026 C O R A M HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE,MEMBER(JUDL.)
1.Ab Rashid Dar, age 40 years S/o: Late Abdul Ahad Dar R/o: Harwan Srinagar
2. Gulzar Ahmad Ganale age 39 years S/o:Ab Rehman Ganale R/o: Khrew Ladoo Pulwama
3. Bashir Ahmad Beigh age 41 years S/o: Late Abdul Gani Beigh R/o: Karpora Srinagar
4. Wahid Hussain age 42 years S/o: Late Ashiq Hussain Khan R/o: Batamaloo Srinagar.
5.Zamrooda Maqbool age 35 years D/o:Mohammad Maqbool R/o: Rainawari Srinagar
6. Bilal Ahmad Baba age 38years S/o: Ali Mohammad Baba R/o: Lalbazar Srinagar.
7. Noor Mohammad Lone age 43 years S/o: Ali Mohammad Lone R/o: Sindbal Ganderbal
8. Fayaz Ahmad Raina age 3 years S/o:Ghulam Mohammad Raina R/o: Reazen Kangan
9. Abdul Rashid Dar age years S/o: Late Mohammad Subhan Dar R/o: Theed Harwan
10. Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Ganie age 39 years S/o: Ghulam Mohammad Ganle R/o: Borihallan Shopian
11. Shamim Ahmad Mir age 39 years S/o: Feroz Ahmad Mir R/o: Herpora Shopian
12. Nazir Ahmad Naik, age 42 years S/o:Assadullah Naik R/o: Laribal Tral
13. Ghulam Hassan Sheikh age 43 years S/o:Khazir Mohammad R/o: Satoora Tral
14. Ghulam Nabi Mir age 4 years S/o: Mohammad Akber Mir R/o: Aripal Tral Pulwama
15. Ghulam Nabi Sheikh age 39 years S/o: Abdul Ahad Sheikh R/o: Kuchmullah Tral
16. S. Ishpal Singh, age 41 years S/o:S. Karan Singh R/o: Shikargah Tral
17. Mohammad Shaban Parray age 42 years S/o:Abdul Aziz Parray R/o: Laribal Tral
18. Riyaz Ahmad Bhat age 40 years S/o: Mohammad Akram Bhat R/o: Kamala Tral.
19. Mohammad Ayoub Bhat age 4 Dyears S/o: Ghulam Nabi Bhat R/o: Waghama, Bijbehara
20. Altaf Hussain Paul age 41 years S/o:Ghulam Ahmad Paul R/o: Anantnag
21. Abdul Rashid Hajam age 42 years S/o: Sonaullah Hajam R/o: Sallar Pahalgam
22. Mohammad Younis Khatana age 43 years S/o:Soba Khatana R/o: Khiram, Bijbehara
23. Ghulam Muhammad Gowgujrie age 42years S/o:Mohammad Ramzan Gowgujrie R/o: Krandigam, Bijbehara
24.Bashir Ahmad Ganie age 41 years S/o:Abdul Aziz Ganie R/o: Thajiwara, Anantnag
25. Mushtaq Ahmad Ganie, age 38 years S/o: Ghulam Rasool Ganie R/o: Meemander, Shopian.
26. Abdul Hamid Mir, age 39 years S/o: Assadullah Mir R/o: Armullah, Pulwama
27. Mohammad Muzaffar Bhat, age 42 years S/o:Ali Muhammad Bhat R/o: Khiram Bijbehara
28. Ghulam Jeelani Lone, age 40 years S/o:Ghulam Mohi-ud-din R/o: Arin Bandipora
29. Mohammad Ashraf Kar, age 41 years S/o: Mohammad Anwar Kar R/o:Shiva Sopore
30. Bashir Ahmad Mir, age 42 years S/o:Ghulam Ahmad R/o: Zaloora Sopore
31. Abdul Subhan Lone, age 42 years S/o: Abdul Jabbar Lone R/o: Babagail Limber
32. Irshad Ahmad Parsa, age 43 years S/o: Gh Jeelani Parsa R/o: Papshan Bandipora
33. Habibullah Khan, age 41 years S/o: Gul Sheir Khan R/o: Atimullah Bandipora
34. Farooq Ahmad Wani, age 42 years S/oAbdul Aziz Wani R/o; Arin Bandipora.
35. Farooq Ahmad Dar, age 39 years S/o: Abdul Khaliq Dar R/o: Puthar Athoora Baramulla
36. Nisar Ahmad Dar, age 40years S/o: Mohammad Maqbool Dar R/o: Gohal, Tengpora, Pattan
37. Mst. Kounsar, age 36 years D/o: Abdul Aziz Ahanger R/o: Kanimazar, Srinagar 38.
38. Mst. Jawahaira, age 39 years D/o: Mushtaq Ahmad Khan R/o: Aloochi Bagh, Srinagar
39. Ghulam Hassan Ganaie, age 42-years S/o; Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Ganaie R/o: Kreshbal Srinagar
40. Bashir Ahmad Ganale, age 40 years S/o:Ghulam Ahmad Ganale R/o:Kreshbal, Srinagar.
41. Mohammad Shafi Wani, age 42 years S/o: Abdul Rehman Wani R/o: Kreshbal, Srinagar.
42. Mohammad Subhan Lone, age 43 years S/o: Abdul Salaam Lone, R/o: Gund Rahman, Ganderbal Srinagar.
43. Abdul Majeed Magray, age 44 years S/o: Mohammad Khaleel Magray R/o: Harran, Ganderbal, Srinagar.
44. Mst. Raja Banoo, age4 years D/o: Ghulam Mohammad Kumar R/o; Surteng, Rainwari, Srinagar.
……Petitioners By Advocate :
Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq VERSUS
1. State of J&K through Commissioner/ Secretary to Govt., Forest Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu.
2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife Protection Department, Srinagar/ Jammu.
3. Chief Wildlife Warden, Department of Wildlife Protection Department J&K Srinagar.
4. Director Finance, Forest Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu.
5. Regional Wildlife Warden Kashmir Srinagar.
6. Wildlife Warden, J&K central Division Srinagar.
7. Wildlife Warden, Wetlands Kashmir Division Srinagar.
8. Wildlife Warden, North Division Sopore.
9. Wildlife Warden, South Kashmir Division
10. Wildlife Warden, Shopian Division.
..….Respondents By Advocate :-
Mr.Syed Musaib, DAG
O R D E R (FINAL)
JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]
01.Through the medium of the present Transfer Application, the applicants seek a direction upon the respondents to release arrears of salary in their favour from the date they were cleared/recommended by the Empowered Committee for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994, on the same analogy and principle on which similarly situated Daily Rated Workers of the respondent department and other departments were granted such benefit.
02.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants had been working as Daily Rated Workers/Helpers in the respondent department and upon completion of the requisite period of continuous service, their cases were considered by the Empowered Committee for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. It is submitted that though the applicants were subsequently regularized pursuant to Government Order No. 439-FST of 2002 dated 08.11.2002, the benefit of arrears of salary from the date of their clearance by the Empowered Committee was denied on the basis of a stipulation incorporated in the said Government Order to the effect that “no arrears shall be authorized and the salary be paid in the regularized grade from the date of issuance of regularization order.”
03.Learned counsel further submits that the said stipulation did not survive subsequently, inasmuch as the Government itself treated similar conditions incorporated ab in earlier Government Orders as having been deleted initio and released arrears of salary in favour of similarly circumstanced employees. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon Government Order No. 346-FST of 2006 dated 23.06.2006, Government Order No. 569-FST of 2007 dated 21.11.2007, Government Order No. 468-FST of 2009 dated 17.12.2009 and Government Order No. 65-FST of 2013 dated 21.02.2013.
04.It is contended that in terms of the aforesaid Government Orders, similarly situated employees, whose regularization had initially been subjected to the same condition denying arrears, were subsequently granted arrears of salary from the date of their clearance by the Empowered Committee while treating the restrictive ab initio stipulations as deleted .
05.Learned counsel submits that the applicants had repeatedly approached the respondents through representations seeking similar treatment. It is submitted that the respondents themselves processed the matter and sought requisite details regarding the applicants for release/work-out of arrears. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon communication No. WLP/Estt/95/881- 83 dated 04.04.2008 and communication No. FST/WL/74/2007 dated 23.02.2010 whereby details regarding regularized workers and arrears payable were sought by the department.
06.Learned counsel submits that despite similarly situated employees having been granted the benefit, the claim of the applicants came to be rejected only on the ground of delay and on the basis of Rule 2.40 of the J&K Financial Code, which action, according to the applicants, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
07.It is further submitted that the claim relates to salary and arrears arising out of services admittedly rendered by the applicants and, therefore, constitutes a recurring and continuing cause of action. It is contended that the respondents cannot selectively deny such benefit to the applicants while extending identical treatment to similarly circumstanced employees.
08.Learned counsel for the applicants has further placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly is 1986 AIR 1571, 1986 SCR (2) 278, 1986 SCC (3) 156 to contend that unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable stipulations imposed by an employer upon an employee occupying a position of unequal bargaining power cannot be enforced in law, particularly where the State or its instrumentalities are involved. It has
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
