Tasleema Jan vs LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT on 22 October 2026

1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner Secretary to Govt. Labour Department Civil Sectt. Srinagar/ Jammu Pin Code-190001. 2 Labour Commissioner, Srinagar Pin code-190001. ….Respondents By Advocate :- Mr. Syed Musaib, DAG

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

01. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,

Location:

1985, assailing Government/Departmental Order No. 302- LC of 2025 dated 18.12.2025, issued by Respondent No. 2, whereby her claim for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant with retrospective effect has not been accepted. The applicant seeks a direction to the respondents to issue formal promotion orders in her favor, with retrospective effect, on the basis of the decision taken by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting held on 19.01.2023, and to release consequential service benefits.

02. The applicant’s case, in brief, is that she is serving as an Aya in the Labor Department and was appointed as such vide Order No. 534-LC of 1999 dated 24.02.1999. She asserts that she possesses the requisite qualification and experience for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant and has also qualified the prescribed type test. According to her, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the applicant’s case for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant and, in view of the issue concerning the

Location:

applicability of the relevant Recruitment Rules to the post of Aya, referred her case to the Administrative Department for approval, with one post of Junior Assistant to be kept reserved pending such approval.

03. The applicant further submits that, by communication dated 01.09.2025, the Administrative Department conveyed approval for treating the post of Aya as Multitasking Staff (MTS), having regard to the nature of the duties performed by the incumbents. According to the applicant, the aforesaid clarification removed the impediment that had prevented the DPC from finalizing her case. She, therefore, submitted a representation dated 07.10.2025 seeking issuance of formal promotion orders in terms of the DPC decision. However, instead of granting the relief sought, Respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order dated 18.12.2025, which has led to the filing of the present Original Application.

04. The applicant has challenged the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that the same is arbitrary,

Location:

unreasonable and contrary to the record. It is submitted on her behalf that she has been discharging the duties of In- charge Junior Assistant since 2010 and that her case was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 19.01.2023. She further submits that one post of Junior Assistant was kept reserved for her and the respondents ought to have proceeded further in the matter. In support of her claim, the applicant relies upon Office Order No. 66/LC/2010 dated 25.06.2010, whereby certain Class-IV employees, including the applicant were placed as In-charge Junior Assistants in their own pay and grade as a stop-gap arrangement. She also relies upon the order dated 01.02.1999 whereby Miss Shahnaz Parveen, an Aya, was promoted as Junior Assistant. According to the applicant, her case is comparable to that of Miss Shahnaz Parveen, whose case was also considered for promotion by the Department. The applicant contends that the respondents have adopted an inconsistent approach in dealing with her claim.

Location:

05. The respondents have filed their objections, opposing the Original Application. Their principal contention is that the applicant does not possess an enforceable right to promotion to the post of Junior Assistant contrary to the applicable Recruitment Rules. The respondents submit that promotion to the post of Junior assistant in the Labour department is regulated by the Jammu and Kashmir Labour (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules 1988. The post of Aya is not included as a feeder category under the aforesaid Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. The respondents maintain that, in the DPC held on 19.01.2023, the cases of eligible candidates were considered. The DPC observed that the category of Aya, along with certain other categories, was not covered under the recruitment rules governing promotion and, accordingly decided to seek clarification from the department, and to keep one post of Junior Assistant reserved for the applicant, subject to approval by the competent authority. It is maintained that the aforesaid

Location:

decision was conditional in nature and did not, by itself, confer any enforceable right upon the applicant to claim promotion.

06. The respondents further submit that the subsequent administrative communication concerning the treatment of the post of Aya as MTS did not, by itself, amend the statutory Recruitment Rules or confer eligibility for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. In the absence of a formal amendment to the applicable Rules or a lawful relaxation granted by the competent authority, the applicant cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. The respondents accordingly pray for dismissal of the Original Application.

07. We have considered the pleadings on record and the material placed before us.

08. From the material placed on record, it emerges that the applicant was appointed as an Aya and was subsequently placed to discharge the duties of In-charge Junior Assistant. Her case was considered by the Departmental

Location:

Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 19.01.2023. The DPC recorded that she had qualified the departmental type test in 2006 and fell within the consideration zone. However, taking note of the fact that the category of Ayas, along with Process Servers and Dressers, was not expressly included in the applicable Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, the DPC decided to refer her case to the Administrative Department for approval and, pending such approval, to keep one post of Junior Assistant reserved for her. The proceedings of DPC, therefore, did not culminate in an unconditional recommendation for her promotion. Subsequently, the applicant’s representation dated 07.10.2025 seeking issuance of formal promotion orders was rejected by Respondent No. 2 vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2025.

09. In the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances, the question that arises for our consideration is, whether, in the absence of an express provision in the applicable

Location:

Recruitment Rules for promotion from the category of Aya to the post of Junior Assistant, can the applicant claim promotion as a matter of right on the basis of the DPC proceedings and the past practice relied upon by her, or whether her claim warrants consideration by the competent authority for relaxation of the relevant rules, if such relaxation is permissible under the applicable legal framework?

10. The controversy involved in the present case requires examination of the relevant proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 19.01.2023, particularly Agenda Point No. 8 concerning the filling up of the posts of Junior Assistant. The said proceedings record the applicable Recruitment Rules, the vacancy position, the eligibility of the candidates, and the decision taken by the Committee in respect of the applicant. For proper appreciation of the matter, the relevant extract of the DPC proceedings is reproduced below:

Location:

“Agenda Point No. 8: Filling up of the Post of Junior Assistant:

RECRUITMENT RULES: As per the Jammu and Kashmir Labour (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, the method of recruitment for the post of Junior Assistant is as under: Designation of the post: Junior Assistant. Grade: Level 4 (₹25,500–81,100), pre-revised ₹5,200–20,200. Method of recruitment:

(i) 75% by direct recruitment.

(ii) 25% by promotion from Class-V (Jamadar) and Class-IV (Orderlies/Chowkidar), from amongst persons having passed the Matriculation Examination, provided they qualify in the type test at a speed of not less than 25 words per minute. SANCTIONED STRENGTH: As per SRO 712 dated 25.10.2019, there are 46 posts of Junior Assistant in the Department. REFERENCE OF LAST DPC: In the last DPC meeting held on 10.03.2022, no proposal was mooted in the category of Junior Assistant due to non-availability of any vacancy. Further, the DPC decided that one post reserved for Mr. Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Orderly, who was regularized as Junior Assistant with effect from 01.08.2018 at roster point No. 16-OM in the DPC held on 11.01.2021, shall continue to remain reserved at roster point No. 16-OM with effect from 01.08.2018 due to the deemed suspension of the official with effect from 09.12.2021, ordered by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kashmir, vide Order No. 91-DLC(K) of 2021 dated 23.12.2021. VACANCY POSITION AS ON 31.12.2022: The sanctioned strength was 46 posts, comprising 35 posts under the direct quota and 11 posts under the promotion quota. Against the direct quota, 27 posts were vacant, out of which 24 posts had already been referred to the Services Selection Board through the Administrative Department and three were yet to be referred. Under the promotion quota, three posts were vacant. SENIORITY/ELIGIBILITY: As per the seniority list issued by the Department vide Notification dated 30.03.2021, a

Location:

combined seniority of all Class-IV employees, including Jamadars, Process Servers, Orderlies, Chowkidars, Dressers, Ayas and Sweepers, is maintained. The detailed overview of the Class-IV employees, in order of their combined seniority, indicates their eligibility and ineligibility for promotion. PROPOSAL: As per the seniority list issued by the Department vide Notification dated 30.03.2021, there is a combined seniority of all Class-IV employees. Smt. Tasleema Jan, Aya, is the eligible candidate who passed the type test in the year 2006 and falls under the consideration zone. Also, Sh. Manish Kumar (SC), Orderly, falls under the consideration zone as the official is Matriculate and has passed the requisite type test in the year 2016. Smt. Tasleema Jan belongs to the category of Ayas. The Aya category of Class-IV employees, along with Process Servers and Dressers, is not included in the Labour Department (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules. However, the Department over the years has considered their promotion to the post of Junior Assistant under the promotion quota. The General Administration Department (GAD), vide S.O. 133 issued under Notification dated 29.03.2022, changed the nomenclature of all Class-IV posts and re-designated them as ‘Multitasking Staff (MTS)’, with the nature of job/duties as per the Annexure to the notification, except the posts of Sanitation Workers and posts requiring technical qualification, in all Departments. In view of the above, as the Department is maintaining a combined seniority list of all Class-IV employees comprising Jamadars, Orderlies, Process Servers, Chowkidars, Watchmen, Ayas, Dressers and Sanitation Workers, and Smt. Tasleema Jan is the first eligible candidate figuring in the seniority list who qualified the requisite type test in the year 2006 conducted by the Department, besides being qualified with a Post-Graduation in Commerce (M.Com), she is proposed to be confirmed/regularized as Junior Assistant. Moreover, one more candidate, namely Sh. Manish Kumar, who is the next eligible candidate for promotion as Junior Assistant, is

Location:

proposed to be confirmed/regularized against an available vacancy. Furthermore, one post reserved for Mr. Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, who was regularized as Junior Assistant with effect from 01.08.2018 at roster point No. 16-OM in the DPC held on 11.01.2021, may continue to be reserved at roster point No. 16-OM with effect from 01.08.2018 due to the deemed suspension of the official with effect from 09.12.2021 by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kashmir, vide Order No. 91- DLC(K) of 2021 dated 23.12.2021. APRs/WORK CONDUCT/INTEGRITY CERTIFICATE AND VIGILANCE CLEARANCE: The Work Conduct/Integrity Certificate and the Vigilance Clearance have been examined by the DPC and found satisfactory.

DECISION:

The DPC, while deliberating on the agenda point, observed that since the Department is maintaining a combined seniority list of Class-IV employees, Smt. Tasleema Jan falls within the consideration zone for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, as she qualified the type test conducted by the Department in the year 2006. However, the DPC took note of the fact that the Aya category of Class-IV employees, along with Process Servers and Dressers, is not included in the Labour (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules. As such, the DPC decided to take up the matter of Smt. Tasleema Jan, Aya, with the Administrative Department for approval. Till such approval is conveyed by the Administrative Department, the DPC decided to keep one post of Junior Assistant reserved for Smt. Tasleema Jan, Aya. Moreover, the DPC decided that the one post reserved for Mr. Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, who was regularized as Junior Assistant with effect from 01.08.2018 at roster point No. 16-OM in the DPC held on 11.01.2021, shall continue to be reserved at roster point No. 16-OM with effect from 01.08.2018 due to the deemed suspension of

Location:

the official with effect from 09.12.2021 by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kashmir, vide Order No. 91- DLC(K) of 2021 dated 23.12.2021. Accordingly, the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended promotion/regularization of Mr. Manish Kumar, Orderly, as Junior Assistant in Level 4 (₹25,500– 81,100), with effect from the date and roster point shown in the proceedings.”

11. The aforesaid proceedings indicate that the DPC considered the applicant’s case in the context of the combined seniority list maintained for Class-IV employees and recorded that she had qualified the departmental type test in 2006. The Committee also took note of her educational qualification and the fact that the categories of Ayas, Process Servers and Dressers were not expressly included in the applicable Labour (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. It accordingly decided to refer the applicant’s case to the Administrative Department for approval and, pending such approval, to keep one post of Junior Assistant reserved for her. The proceedings further record that the Work Conduct/Integrity Certificate and

Location:

Vigilance Clearance had been examined and found satisfactory. The DPC separately recommended the promotion / regularization of Sh. Manish Kumar, Orderly, and decided to continue the reservation of the post pertaining to Sh. Mohammad Yaqoob Mir at roster point No. 16-OM, in view of his deemed suspension.

12. The DPC proceedings also record, under Agenda Point No. 7 concerning the filling up of the posts of Senior Assistant, that two vacancies in that cadre were available. One vacancy had arisen due to the retirement of Smt. Hamida Mir on 31.07.2022, while the other had arisen consequent upon the promotion of Mr. Roop Sharma, Senior Assistant, as Labour Inspector, which had been confirmed by the DPC under Agenda Point No. 4. The Committee observed that both vacancies were required to remain unfilled because eligible candidates were not available from the category of Junior Assistants. The aforesaid decision forms part of the broader proceedings of the DPC meeting dated 19.01.2023. However, since the

Location:

present Original Application concerns the applicant’s claim for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, hence her claim needs to be examined primarily in the light of the specific deliberations and decision recorded under Agenda Point No. 8 concerning that post.

13. A careful reading of the DPC proceedings does not support the conclusion that the applicant had been finally and unconditionally promoted or that the DPC had issued a concluded recommendation which, by itself, required the immediate issuance of a formal promotion order. Rather, the proceedings disclose that the matter remained subject to clarification regarding the applicability of the Recruitment Rules to the category of Aya. The reservation of a post for the applicant, in that context, cannot be read in isolation from the condition recorded in the proceedings.

14. The fact that the DPC did not take a final decision on the applicant’s promotion in view of the position of the post of Aya under the applicable Recruitment Rules is a

Location:

relevant circumstance that requires consideration in the light of the proceedings recorded by the Committee. The Committee had considered it necessary to seek clarification from the Administrative Department and accordingly referred the matter to the competent departmental forum. The subsequent action taken by the respondents, therefore, requires examination in the context of the aforesaid proceedings and the development that followed.

15. The applicant relies upon the communication dated 01.09.2025 issued by the Administrative Department, which conveyed approval for treating the post of Aya as MTS, having regard to the nature of the duties attached to the post. The said communication is material to the applicant’s claim because the absence of clarity regarding the status of the post of Aya was the very issue that had prevented the DPC from taking the matter to its logical conclusion.

16. It is, however, necessary to distinguish between the

Location:

administrative treatment or nomenclature of a post and the statutory conditions governing promotion to another post. An administrative clarification regarding the treatment of a post as MTS does not, without more, establish that all the eligibility conditions prescribed for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant stand fulfilled. Nor can such a clarification be treated as an automatic amendment of the applicable Recruitment Rules. The applicant’s claim must accordingly be considered within the framework of the governing service rules and the powers available to the competent authority.

17. The respondents are justified in contending that promotion to a public post must be governed by the applicable Recruitment Rules and that a claim to promotion cannot be allowed merely on the basis of an administrative understanding or an expectation arising from the DPC proceedings. At the same time, the existence of the Recruitment Rules does not absolve the competent authority from considering the applicant’s case in a fair

Location:

and reasoned manner, particularly when the department itself had referred the issue for clarification and the Administrative Department subsequently issued a communication concerning the status of the post.

18. The applicant has also relied upon earlier departmental orders in support of her claim of parity. Office Order No. 66/LC/2010 dated 25.06.2010, placed at Annexure IV, records the placement of certain Class-IV employees, including Miss Tasleema, as In-charge Junior Assistants in their own pay and grade, purely as a stop-gap arrangement. The order expressly stipulated that the arrangement would not confer any preferential right upon the incumbents to hold the post if the DPC did not find them fit under the applicable rules. The applicant has further relied upon the order dated 01.02.1999 concerning the promotion of Miss Shahnaz Parveen, an Aya, as Junior Assistant, placed at Annexure IX. The said order, however, made its effectiveness conditional upon withdrawal of the writ petition filed before the High

Location:

Court. These orders are relevant to the applicant’s plea that the Department has, in the past, dealt with employees belonging to the category of Ayas in connection with the post of Junior Assistant. Their legal effect must, however, be assessed in the light of the terms and conditions contained therein and the applicable Recruitment Rules. Neither the stop-gap placement order nor the earlier promotion order, by itself, establishes an unconditional right in the applicant to promotion. Nevertheless, the material relied upon by the applicant warrants fair consideration by the competent authority while examining her claim and the question of parity.

19. The issue, therefore, is not whether the applicant must automatically be promoted on the strength of the DPC proceedings dated 19.01.2023 or the administrative communication dated 01.09.2025. The issue is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the competent authority ought to consider the applicant’s request for one- time relaxation, if permissible under the applicable rules

Location:

and law, in order to address the specific difficulty arising from the treatment of the post of Aya under the Recruitment Rules.

20. The power to relax service rules, wherever such power exists, must be exercised by the authority competent under the applicable statutory framework and subject to the conditions governing its exercise. A direction for consideration of relaxation cannot be construed as a direction to grant relaxation or promotion. The competent authority must independently examine whether the applicable rules confer such power, whether the circumstances warrant its exercise, and whether the proposed course is consistent with the governing service framework and the requirements of public administration.

21. In the present case, the DPC had specifically identified the difficulty arising from the omission of the category of Aya from the relevant Recruitment Rules and referred the matter to the Administrative Department for approval, while keeping one post of Junior Assistant reserved for

Location:

the applicant pending such approval. Subsequently, the General Administration Department issued S.O. 133 dated 29.03.2022, re-designating most Class-IV posts as Multitasking Staff (MTS), subject to the exceptions specified therein, and the Administrative Department communicated its decision dated 01.09.2025 concerning the treatment of the post of Aya as MTS. These developments are material and ought to be considered together with the applicable Recruitment Rules, the DPC proceedings dated 19.01.2023, the applicant’s service record, the satisfactory Work Conduct/Integrity Certificate and Vigilance Clearance recorded by the DPC, and the earlier departmental orders relied upon by the applicant. At the same time, re-designation of a post as MTS does not, by itself, establish that the statutory Recruitment Rules governing promotion to the post of Junior Assistant have been amended or that the applicant has acquired an automatic right to promotion. The competent authority must examine the legal effect of the aforesaid

Location:

developments and determine the course permissible under the applicable rules.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the applicant’s claim for promotion with retrospective effect and consequential service benefits cannot be granted directly by this Tribunal at this stage, as the DPC proceedings dated 19.01.2023 did not culminate in an unconditional recommendation for her promotion. However, the DPC had specifically referred her case to the Administrative Department for approval and decided to keep one post of Junior Assistant reserved for her pending such approval. The subsequent communication dated 01.09.2025 concerning the treatment of the post of Aya as Multitasking Staff (MTS) is also a relevant development which requires consideration along with the applicable Recruitment Rules, the applicant’s service record and the earlier departmental orders relied upon by her. In these circumstances, the appropriate course would be to direct the competent authority to consider the applicant’s request

Location:

for one-time relaxation, if permissible under the applicable rules and law, and take a reasoned decision thereon.

23. Accordingly, the competent authority shall consider the applicant’s request for one-time relaxation, under the applicable rules and law, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. While doing so, the authority shall take into account the DPC proceedings dated 19.01.2023, the communication dated 01.09.2025, the applicant’s service record, the Work Conduct/Integrity Certificate and Vigilance Clearance recorded by the DPC, and the earlier departmental orders relied upon by the applicant. The decision shall be taken independently on the merits of the case and in accordance with the applicable rules and law.

24. Having regard that the respondents, have already reserved one post of Junior Assistant for the applicant, as acknowledged before this Tribunal, shall take the matter

Location:

to its logical conclusion. The interim direction for reservation of the said post shall continue to operate for a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, or until the competent authority passes a reasoned order on the applicant’s request for one-time relaxation, whichever is earlier. Upon the passing of such order, the interim direction shall cease to operate, and the respondents shall proceed in respect of the said post in accordance with the decision so taken and the applicable rules and law. It is clarified that continuation of the interim arrangement for the aforesaid limited period shall not be construed as conferring any right upon the applicant to promotion or retrospective service benefits.

25. There shall be no order as to costs.

26. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Location:

27. The Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room after due compliance.

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

22.10.2026 DEVENDRA TRIPATHI

Location: