Central Administrative Tribunal
Sumit Kumar vs RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT on 31 December 2024
:: 1 ::
O.A. No. 1471/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 1471/2024
Order Date- 31.12.2024
HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. Sumit Kumar S/o Paras Ram, Age 35 years R/o Saranoo Bridge, Dangri Rajouri-185132.
2. Mohd Ghulam Fareed S/o Mohd Rashid, Age 36 years R/o Village Nagrota, Tehsil and District Rajour-185132.
3. Rayaz ul Haq S/o Abdul Haq, Age 35 years R/o Village Katarmal, Tehsil Rajouri- 185131.
4. Waris Ahmed S/o Shabir Ahmed, Age 38 years R/o Nagrota Rajouri-185132.
5. Mohd Mohsin Malik S/o Ghulam Mustfa Malik, Age 37
years R/o Bari Darhal Block Darhal Rajouri-185135.
6. Mohd Khaliq S/o Mohd Iqbal, Age 36 years R/o Nadian, Kotranka Rajouri- 185233.
7. Shakti Sharma S/o Madan Lal, Age 38 years R/o Village Banpuri, Bajwal, Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri-
185153.
…Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. Ajaz Chowdhary)
Versus
:: 2 ::
1 UT of Jammu and Kashmir, through its Commissioner/
Secretary, Rural Development Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar-180001
2 To the Director Rural Development Department Jammu-
180016.
3 The Additional Deputy Commissioner Mission Head Rajouri-185131.
4 Assistant Commissioner Development Nodal Officer, Rajouri-185131.
5 The Block Development Officer, Block Dhangri, Rajouri- 185132
6 The Block Development Officer, Block Panjgrian, Rajouri-185202.
7 The Block Development Officer, Block Rajnagar, Rajouri-
185131.
8 The Block Development Officer, Block Kotranka, Rajouri- 185233
9 The Block Development Officer, Block Seri, Rajouri-
185151.
…Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Dewakar Sharma, DAGMr. Hunar Gupta, Ld DAG)
:: 3 ::
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. The Original Application has been filed by the applicant making therein the following prayers:- i. Seeking directions to the respondents to regularize the service of the applicants on the posts held by the applicants pursuant to the appointment orders issued by the nodal officer (Assistant Commissioner Development Rajouri) in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Uma Devi v/s State of as the applicants were appointed on vacant posts as well as also eligible for the posts. ii. Seeking directions to the respondents to consider the representation of the applicants for allowing them to continue to work on the post held by them as has been done with the similarly situated candidate pursuant to the orders dated 11.11.2024 issued by respondent no 2. iii. Seeking directions to the respondents to pay the salary to the applicants including back salary and released their salary continuously in future.
2. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant no 1 to 6 were engaged as Technical Assistant vide order dated 22.10.2016, 26.09.2016, 08.07.2016, 05,09,2016, 30.10,2016 and 22.10.2016
:: 4 ::
respectively similarly the applicant no. 7 was appointed as Barefoot Engineer vide order dated 04.07.2017. Further the applicants approached to Hon'ble High court for their regularization under the provision of SRO-520-2017 dated 21.12.2017 and Hon’ble High Court has directed to the respondents particularly the respondent no. 5 and 6 to forward the name of the petitioner for consideration to the empowered committee constituted under SRO 520-2017 provided their cases are covered under the said SRO, the petitioner shall also be paid the salary for the period they have actually rendered their services to the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for applicants submits that the applicants have already made the representation on 16.12.2024 to the respondent no 1 for granting similar benefit to the applicants being similarly situated to the candidates which were allowed to continue pursuant to communication dated 11.11.2024, but till date the respondent has not considered the same.
4. Mr. Hunar Gupta, Ld DAG has appeared for respondents and vehemently opposed the prayer of applicants.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that he would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to decide the representation of applicants and to allow them for continuing their work on analogy of similar situated candidates pursuant to the orders dated 11.11.2024.
:: 5 ::
5. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant, without entering entered into merits of this case, This OA is disposed of with direction to respondents to consider case of the applicants by passing a reasoned and speaking order in light of judgment Uma Devi passed by Hon’ble Apex court and on analogy of similar situated candidates pursuant to the orders dated 11.11.2024. Respondents are further directed to pay the pending salary of applicant if due.
6. The said exercise shall be completed within 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No cost.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
MEMBER (A)
MEMBER (J)
Vs/