Gulzar Ahmad Aalie vs EDUCATION on 22 October 2026

1. Gulzar Ahmad Aalie Aged 60 years S/o Wali Mohd Alaie R/o H. No. 18 Trichal Pulwama-192301, Phone No. 9596441131

2. Mukhtar Ahmad Bhat Aged 61 years S/o Ab. Rashid Bhat R/o H. No. 41 Zawoora Pantha-Chowk-191101, Phone No. 9018242514

3. Mohammad Iqbal Lone Aged 62 years S/o Ghulam Hassan Lone R/o H. No. 65 Kathohalan Shopian- 192303, Phone No. 9622969287.

4. Mohammad Yousuf Sofi Aged 63 years S/o Ghulam Mohammad Sofi R/o H. No. 21 Wuyan Pulwama- 191102, Phone No. 9797272608

5. Maymoona Akhter Aged 55 years D/o Mohd Afzal Sheikh R/o H. No. 33 Murran Pulwama- 192301, Phone No. 7006695846.

6. Rosha Parveen Aged 56 years D/o Ali Mohd. Malla R/o H. No. 07 Litter Shister, Pulwama- 192305,

Location:

Phone No. 9906896492

7. Malik Mahmood Riyaz Aged 55 years S/o Malik Gulam Nabi R/o H. No. 91 Malikpora Pulwama- 192301, Phone No.7006707881

8. Farooq Ahmad Malik Aged 58 years S/o Mohd. Ahsan Malik R/o H. No. 12 Nadigam, Shopian-192303, Phone No.8082486199

9. Mohmad Ayube Reshi Aged 58 years S/o Mohd. Ibrahim Reshi R/o H. No. 03 Wachi Shopian- 192305, Phone No. 9797990189

10. Mohd Hussain Khan Aged 59 years S/o Ab. Gani Khan R/o H. No. 79 Rajpora Pulwama-192306, Phone No.9906668129

11. Nazir Ahmad Wani Aged 60 years S/o Abdul Gani R/o H. No. 59 Ladhu Pampore Pulwama-191103, Phone No.9906896492

12. Neelofar Shaheen Aged 52 years D/o Gh. Nabi Wani R/o H. No. 15 Gabarpora Pulwama- 192302, Phone No.7006041251

13. Gulshan Akhter Aged 58 years D/o Gh. Hassan R/o h. No. 39 Namlabal Pampore Pulwama- 192121, Phone No.9541481008. ……Applicants

Location:

By Advocate : Mr. Sheikh Manzoor along with Ms. Asma Rashid VERSUS

1. Union Territory Commissioner/ Secretary to Government, Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu, Pin Code 190001.

2. Director School Education Kashmir, Srinagar; Pin Code: 190001.

3. Chief Education Officer, Pulwama- 192301.

4. Chief Education Officer, Shopian- 192303. ..….Respondents By Advocate :- Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG

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

01. Before proceeding further, it is noticed from the record that the applicants have filed MA No. 1419/2026 seeking permission to file a joint application. For the reasons stated therein, the said miscellaneous application is allowed.

02. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were initially appointed on an ad hoc or consolidated basis against available vacancies, including leave-arrangement vacancies, in the Education

Location:

Department between the years 1991 and 1998. It is submitted that the applicants continued to discharge their duties uninterruptedly for several years and that their engagements were extended from time to time by the competent authority. The applicants were serving in different capacities, including as Librarians, Junior Assistants, Chowkidars, Orderlies, Lab Bearers and Class- IV employees. Their services were subsequently regularised under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, with Applicants 1 to 10 being regularised on 22.02.2013, Applicant No. 11 on 26.02.2018, and Applicants 12 and 13 on 12.05.2015. The applicants contend that they had completed seven years of continuous service well before their respective dates of regularisation and that the respondents failed to regularise their services with effect from the dates on which they became eligible for such regularisation.

03. It is further submitted that similarly situated employees have been granted the benefit of retrospective

Location:

regularisation in terms of the judgment passed in Suheela Aziz v. State of J&K and Others, LPA No. 133/2002. Learned counsel particularly relies upon the case of Manzoor Ahmad Dar, whose services were retrospectively regularised vide Government Order No. 265-DSEK of 2022 dated 06.04.2022 on the same analogy. The applicants claim parity with the said employee and contend that they are entitled to similar treatment. Reliance is also placed upon the orders dated 27.06.2022 and 01.07.2022 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 572/2022, titled Shahzada Akhter v. UT of J&K and Others, and O.A. No. 607/2022, titled Hamid Ali Bhat and Others v. UT of J&K and Others, whereby the respondents were directed to consider the representations of the applicants therein in accordance with law and on the analogy of the order passed in the case of Manzoor Ahmad Dar. The applicants also rely upon the order dated 15.04.2026 passed in O.A. No. 325/2026, titled Feroza Akhtar and Another v. UT of J&K and Others,

Location:

whereby the respondents were directed to consider the claim for retrospective regularisation by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

04. The applicants further submit that they have submitted several representations seeking similar benefits, including a representation dated 05.05.2026, but the respondents have failed to consider their claims. It is also stated that the applicants had earlier filed O.A. No. 1251/2025, titled Gulzar Ahmad Aalie and Others v. UT of J&K and Others, which was withdrawn with liberty to institute a fresh application. The applicants contend that the denial of retrospective regularisation, despite similar benefits having allegedly been extended to other similarly situated employees, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They further submit that, having completed more than seven years of continuous service, they are entitled to consideration for regularisation from the respective dates on which they completed the prescribed qualifying service and that the

Location:

respondents’ failure to extend such benefit is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of equality and non- arbitrariness.

05. On the aforesaid grounds, the applicants seek a direction to the respondents to consider and grant them retrospective regularisation from the respective dates on which they completed seven years of continuous service, on the same analogy as extended to Suheela Aziz, Manzoor Ahmad Dar and other similarly situated employees, together with consequential benefits, including notional seniority, salary arrears and retiral benefits. They have also sought interim relief in the form of a direction to the respondents to consider their pending representation dated 05.05.2026 during the pendency of the Original Application.

06. However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the ends of justice would be adequately served if a direction is issued to the respondents to treat the present Original Application

Location:

as a representation and consider the applicants’ claims for retrospective regularisation from the respective dates on which they completed seven years of continuous service, together with consequential benefits, including notional seniority, salary arrears and retiral benefits, in the light of the averments made in the Original Application and the documents annexed thereto, particularly the orders dated 27.06.2022 and 01.07.2022 passed in O.A. No. 572/2022 and O.A. No. 607/2022 (Annexure A-4, pages 58–61 of the Original Application), the order dated 15.04.2026 passed in O.A. No. 325/2026 (Annexure A-5 available at pages 62–70 of the Original Application), strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

07. Mr. Satinder Singh, learned AAG, appearing pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicants, submits that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.

08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

Location:

record.

09. 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 applicants.

10. 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 claims raised therein, including the applicants’ claims for retrospective regularisation from the respective dates on which they completed seven years of continuous service and for consequential benefits, including notional seniority, salary arrears and retiral benefits, in the light of the averments made in the Original Application and the documents annexed thereto, particularly in light of the orders dated 27.06.2022 and 01.07.2022 passed in O.A.

Location:

No. 572/2022 and O.A. No. 607/2022 (Annexure A-4, pages 58–61 of the Original Application), the order dated 15.04.2026 passed in O.A. No. 325/2026 (Annexure A-5 available at pages 62–70 of the Original Application), strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and the law governing the field, subject to the applicants being found eligible and entitled to the reliefs claimed, being similarly situated and squarely covered by the relevant judgments and orders, and there being no legal impediment thereto.

11. 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 applicants in accordance with the applicable procedure.

12. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by the applicants, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority

Location:

in accordance with law.

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

14. No order as to costs.

15. 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: