Central Administrative Tribunal
Ashwani Kumar vs D/o Education Ut Of J & K on 30 December 2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU
Hearing through video conferencing
T.A./61/9238/2020
This the 30th day of December, 2020
HON’BLE MR. RAKESH SAGAR JAIN, MEMBER (J)
Ashwani Kumar age 31 yrs,
S/o Sh.Babu Ram
R/o Chahan Ranga,
Tehsil Hiranagar,
District Kathua.
........................Applicant
(Advocate: Mr. Vivek Sharma)
Versus
1.
State Through Commissioner Secretary,
Education Department, J&K
Jammu.
2.
Director School Education,
Jammu.
3.
Chief Education Officer,
Kathua.
4.
Principal of Govt. Hr.Sec. School Kota,
District Kathua.
...................Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thappa, Additional Advocate General)
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.
O R D E R
[O R A L] Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rakesh Sagar Jain, Member (J): - During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if the respondents are
:: 2 :: T.A./61/308/2020
directed to regularize their services in terms of “ The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act 2010”.
2. Looking to the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant, the TA is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for regularization of their service provided they are eligible for the regularization in accordance with the relevant schemes and acts applicable in their case. This exercise be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by way of reasoned and speaking order. The applicants may also be intimated regarding the decision taken in this regard by the respondents. It is once again reiterated that the consideration for regularization of services of the applicant shall be considered by the respondent strictly in terms of relevant schemes and rules.
3. It is made clear that I have not entered into the merits of the case.
4. No order as to cost.
(RAKESH SAGAR JAIN)
MEMBER (J) Ak/-