gazala yasmeen mir vs GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT on 22 October 2026

1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., General Administration Department Civil Secretariat Srinagar/Jammu Pin Code No. 190 001

2. Commissioner/Secretary to Government Education Department Civil Secretariat Srinagar/Jammu Pin Code No. 190 001

3. Commissioner/Secretary to Government Finance Department Civil Secretariat Srinagar/Jammu Pin Code No. 190 001

4. Director School Education, Kashmir Srinagar Pin Code No. 190001. ..….Respondents By Advocate :- Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG

Location:

O R D E R (ORAL) JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

01. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was appointed as a contractual Teacher in District Pulwama on 10.11.2006 pursuant to a selection process conducted under the Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003, framed under SRO

255. Her name figured at Serial No. 10 in the second waiting list, and she was appointed against an available post for a period of one year or until a regular selection was made, whichever was earlier. However, no regular selection was conducted, and the applicant continued to serve. It is further submitted that, following the enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, which provided for the regularisation of eligible ad hoc, contractual and consolidated employees subject to the conditions prescribed therein, the applicant was eventually regularised vide Government Order No. 577-Edu of 2015 dated 30.10.2015, wherein her name figured at Serial No.

Location:

144 for District Pulwama. The applicant contends that the delay in her regularisation was attributable to the respondents and that, having been appointed through a selection process and having continued in service against an available post, she is entitled to regularisation with effect from the date of her initial appointment, i.e., 10.11.2006, instead of 30.10.2015.

02. It is further submitted that SRO 400 dated 24.12.2009 amended the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Rules by providing for the applicability of the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme to employees appointed or brought onto the regular establishment on or after 01.01.2010. The applicant contends that, since her initial appointment was made in 2006, prior to the introduction of the said pension scheme, her subsequent regularisation ought not to be treated as a fresh appointment for the purpose of determining her pensionary entitlement. Accordingly, she claims that she is entitled to pensionary benefits under the rules applicable prior to 01.01.2010.

Location:

She also relies upon Cabinet decisions dated 20.05.2008 and 29.08.2009 concerning the regularisation of contractual and ad hoc employees and contends that the delay in giving effect to the policy decisions should not deprive her of the benefits contemplated thereunder.

03. The applicant further relies upon Government Order No. 1061-GAD of 2014 dated 16.10.2014, whereby the past service of certain migrant substitute employees was counted for pensionary purposes. She contends that denial of similar treatment to her is discriminatory, particularly when, according to her, she was appointed through a formal selection process, whereas the aforesaid employees were engaged as substitutes without undergoing such a process. She alleges violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and places reliance upon the judgments cited as M.K. Shamugen and Another v. Union of India and Another, Ulfat Ara and Others v. State and Others, and the connected matter concerning Rabia Shah, stated to deal with similarly situated contractual

Location:

employees and the grant of consequential benefits.

04. It is further submitted that, despite repeated representations, the respondents have neither modified the applicant’s regularisation order nor extended the benefits claimed by her. The applicant also served a legal notice dated 21.09.2026 upon the Director, School Education Kashmir, seeking regularisation with effect from the date of her initial appointment and the consequential pensionary benefits; however, no decision thereon has been communicated to her. The applicant has, accordingly, approached this Tribunal seeking retrospective regularisation with effect from 10.11.2006, refixation of seniority and grant of pensionary benefits under the pension rules applicable prior to 01.01.2010, along with all consequential service benefits. In the alternative, she seeks modification of the regularisation order dated 30.10.2015 or a direction to the respondents to consider and decide her claim within a stipulated period.

05. However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned

Location:

counsel for the applicant submitted that the ends of justice would be adequately served if a direction is issued to the respondents to treat the present Original Application as a representation and consider the applicant’s claims for retrospective regularisation with effect from 10.11.2006, refixation of seniority, grant of pensionary benefits under the rules applicable prior to 01.01.2010, and extension of all consequential service benefits, along with the documents annexed thereto, particularly the legal notice dated 21.09.2026 (Annexure V, page 70 of the Original Application), the order dated 10.07.2018 passed in SWP No. 2147/2017 (Annexure VII, pages 75–80 of the Original Application), and the order passed in LPA No. 39/2019 (Annexure VIII, pages 89–106 of the Original Application), strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

06. Mr. Satinder Singh, learned AAG, appearing pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the present Original Application

Location:

may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.

07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

08. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending, particularly in view of the limited relief pressed by learned counsel for the applicant.

09. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation and consider the applicant’s claims for retrospective regularisation with effect from 10.11.2006, refixation of seniority, grant of pensionary benefits under the rules applicable prior to 01.01.2010, and extension of consequential service benefits, in the light of the averments made in the Original Application

Location:

and the documents annexed thereto, particularly the legal notice dated 21.09.2026 (Annexure V, page 70 of the Original Application), the order dated 10.07.2018 passed in SWP No. 2147/2017 (Annexure VII, pages 75–80 of the Original Application), and the order passed in LPA No. 39/2019 (Annexure VIII, pages 89–106 of the Original Application), strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and the law governing the field, subject to the applicant being found eligible and entitled to the reliefs claimed, being similarly situated and squarely covered by the relevant judgments, wherever applicable, and there being no legal impediment thereto.

10. The respondents shall pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within a period of twelve weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon them. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant in accordance with the applicable procedure.

11. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by the applicant,

Location:

and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

12. With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

13. No order as to costs.

14. The Registry shall consign the file to the Record Room after due compliance.

PRASANT KUMAR (JUSTICE RITU TAGORE) Member(Admn.) Member(Judl.)

22-10-2026 DEVENDRA TRIPATHI

Location: