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)(J&K) 311

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Sanjay Dhar, J
Amarjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K – Respondent
SWP No.1088/2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Z. A. Qureshi, Rehana Fayaz
For the Respondents: Furqaan Yaqoob, Shakir Haqani

Employees transitioned to an autonomous instrumentality are governed by the entity's specific service regulations. Government-notified pay scale rules do not automatically apply to such employees unless the entity has explicitly adopted them, regardless of the retention of prior pensionary benefits.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Doctrine of adoption of service rules - Employees of a former government-managed department transitioned into an autonomous instrumentality - Entitlement to higher standard pay scale benefits - Whether service rules applicable to government servants automatically apply to employees of an autonomous entity. Service rules governing government servants do not extend to employees of an autonomous instrumentality unless specifically adopted by such entity. (Paras 10, 12, 14)

(B) Service Law - Exercise of option - Transition of service - Once an employee exercises an option to accept employment in an autonomous instrumentality, they are governed by the internal regulations of said entity, barring specific provisions protecting prior pensionary entitlements. (Paras 11, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, formerly working for a government-managed entity, were transitioned into an autonomous instrumentality upon its creation. The petitioners sought the extension of pay scale enhancement rules applicable to government servants. The respondents rejected the claim, maintaining that upon transition, the petitioners became employees of the autonomous entity and were covered by its specific service regulations rather than government-notified rules.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that service regulations applicable to government servants do not automatically extend to employees of autonomous instrumentalities. It was held that, having opted to serve the autonomous entity, the employees are bound by its service conditions, provided their previously protected pensionary rights are not adversely affected.

Issues: Whether transitioned employees of an autonomous entity, who retain pensionary benefits from prior government service, are entitled to automatically receive pay scale enhancements promulgated for current government employees without explicit adoption of those rules by the autonomous entity.

Ratio Decidendi: Internal regulations and pay scales applicable to government departments do not apply to an autonomous entity unless expressly adopted by that body. Since the petitioners chose employment within the autonomous entity, they are governed by its service rules, and the lack of adoption of specific government pay scale rules precludes their claim to those benefits.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and the nature of the claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. conflicting contentions regarding service condition applicability. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. interpretation of government order 25-tr-1979 regarding employee options. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. application of established precedents on non-adoption of service rules. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. distinguishing precedents and formal order of dismissal. (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have challenged order bearing No.JKSRTC/EC III/1436 dated 06.11.2012 issued by the J&K State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”), whereby claim of the petitioners regarding extension of benefits available in terms of SRO 14 of 1996 and SRO 225 of 1997, has been rejected. The petitioners have further sought a direction upon the respondents to release the earned salary in their favour from March, 2002 and to extend the benefit of SRO 14 of 1996 and SRO 225 of 1997 in their favour.

2) It seems that the petitioners had filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.1453/2002 against the respondents seeking the same relief which has been sought in the present writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 16.08.2011, whereby the respondents were directed to consider release of earned salary since March, 2002, in favour of the petitioners and also to consider the extension of all other benefits as are available to Government servants in accordance with rules.

3) Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court, the matter was considered by the respondents and thereafter claim of the petitioners has been rejected in terms of the impugned order dated 06.11.2012 (supra). It is pertinent to mention here that in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that salary with other allowances as applicable to the Corporation employees stands released in favour of the petitioners since March, 2002, whereas in respect of extension of benefits under SRO 14 of 1996 and SRO 225 of 1997, it has been mentioned that the same cannot be extended to the petitioners because they are now employees of the respondent-Corporation and not of the Government.

4) The case set up by the petitioners is that they were the employees of the Government Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the GTU). The said entity was converted into State Road Transport Corporation, whereafter, in terms of order No.26-TR of 1979 dated 29.03.1979 and according to the petitioners, the employees were asked to exercise their option as to whether they want to continue in the government service or would prefer to work in the respondent-Corporation. It is case of the petitioners that they did not opt for permanent absorption in the respondent-Corporation and, as such, their service conditions are to be governed by the rules applicable to the government employees and, thus, on this basis, the benefits available under SRO 14 of 1996 and SRO 225 of 1997, which were applicable to the government employees, are applicable to the petitioners as well. To buttress this point, the petitioners have submitted that they are being paid pension like other government employees and, as such, they are entitled to all the benefits which are available to the government employees.

5) It has been contended that the employees of J&K Government have been given the benefit of SRO 14 of 1996, vide which J&K Civil Services (Higher Standard) Pay Scale Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules of 1996”) have been promulgated and as per these Rules, non-gazetted employees are entitled to first in-situ promotion after completion of nine years. Similarly, as per SRO 225 of 1997, whereby amendment was made in the Rules of 1996, further benefit was accorded in favour of the employees after putting in 18 years of service. It has been contended that in the case of the petitioners, the benefit of the Rules of 1996 has not been extended in their favour even though they

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