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

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6548

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Ram Mohan Johri, Member
Abdul Aziz – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
Transfer Application No. 7479/2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rahul Pant
For the Respondents: Rajesh Thappa, Sudesh Magotra, Hunar Gupta

An employee engaged on an ad hoc basis against a vacant post, having served beyond the required threshold before the issuance of a regularization policy, is entitled to retrospective regularization benefits regardless of a later prospective regularization under a different enactment.

Headnote:The case involves a dispute regarding the retrospective regularization of an employee who served as an Orderly on an ad hoc basis from 29.07.1993. The applicant sought benefits pursuant to Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001, which mandates regularization of ad hoc employees upon completion of seven years of continuous service. The respondents rejected the claim, contending the applicant was not an ad hoc employee and was already regularized under a later statue. The Court held that the applicant’s long-term service against a vacant post, supported by departmental records and prior judicial directions, qualified him for the benefits of the 2001 Government Order. The main issues framed were whether the applicant qualified as an ad hoc employee for the purpose of the 2001 regularization policy and whether previous judicial directions regarding the consideration of his case mandated a retrospective outcome. The Court reasoned that the rejection of the applicant's claim based on technical distinctions regarding his employment status was contrary to facts and ignored the objective of the Government Order. It emphasized that an earlier regularization under a different Act does not preclude retrospective benefits if the employee otherwise satisfied the eligibility criteria for earlier policies. The final outcome was that the application was partly allowed, the rejection order was quashed, and the respondent was directed to grant the applicant notional fixations, seniority, and service benefits effective from 29.07.2000, while adjusting actual monetary benefits.

Table of Content
1. summary of employment history and the procedural background of the regularization dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
2. respondents' objections regarding res judicata, disputed facts, and eligibility under specific regularization policies. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
3. court determination on the validity of the applicant's ad hoc status and eligibility for retrospective benefits. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
4. granting equitable notional relief for past service while balancing fiscal and administrative consequences. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)

ORDER

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

1. The SWP No.2529/2018 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.7479/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

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

I. Writ, order of direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing Order No.INF-152/2018 dated 31.08.2018 issued by the respondent no.2 whereby the claim of the petitioner for his regularization with retrospective effect has been rejected;

II. Writ, order of direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize and appoint the petitioner in regular pay scale of Orderly strictly in accordance with the provisions of Govt. Order no.1285- GAD of 2001 dated 06.11.2001 w.e.f the date the petitioner completed seven years of service with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits;

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 petitioner and against the respondents along with/cost.

3. The present matter was originally filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu as SWP No. 2529/2018. On transfer, the same has been registered before this Tribunal as T.A. No. 7479/2021.

4. The applicant has filed the present petition seeking quashing of Order No. INF-152/2018 dated 31.08.2018, whereby his claim for regularization with retrospective effect has been rejected. He further seeks a direction to the respondents to regularize/appoint him in the regular pay scale of Orderly in terms of Government Order No. 1285- GAD of 2001 dated 06.11.2001 from the date he completed seven years of service, with all consequential benefits. The pleadings and reliefs are borne out from the transferred record.

5. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant, Abdul Aziz, is stated to be Matriculate and belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category. He submitted an application before the competent authority for permanent absorption in the Tehsil Information Centre, Budhal. The said application was processed through the official channel, and the applicant came to be engaged as Orderly in Tehsil Information Centre, Budhal, District Rajouri, vide Order No. INF/J-2962-66/93 dated 29.07.1993.

6. The applicant has pleaded that his engagement was on ad hoc/month-to-month basis. Thereafter, vide Order No. INF/J-4654-58/93 dated 04.10.1993, he was permitted to continue to work against the post of Orderly in Tehsil Information Centre, Budhal, till the newly selected incumbent joined, after giving a break of one day.

7. It is the case of the applicant that one Ram Parkash, son of Dewan Chand, resident of Rajouri, was allegedly selected as Orderly in Tehsil Information Centre, Budhal, by the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri. However, the said candidate failed to produce the requisite State Subject/Permanent Resident Certificate in original and did not join the post. Consequently, the applicant continued to discharge duties against the said post.

8. The applicant further pleads that despite his continued service against the post of Orderly, the respondents did not regularize his services on the pretext that Ram Pa

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