Aijaz Ahmad Bhat vs RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT on 21 October 2026

1. Aijaz Ahmad Bhat (Aged:54 years) S/o Ghulam Mohammad Bhat R/o Karhama, Tangmarg. Pin-193404.

2. Bashir Ahmad Khanday (Aged:53 years) S/o Abdul Karim Khanday R/o Ogmuna, Karhama, Tangmarg. Pin- 193404

3. Mohammad Aslam Khuroo (Aged:55 years) S/o Ghulam Qadir Khuroo R/o Doabgah, Achabal, Sopore. Pin-193404.

4. Mohammad Ashraf Dar (Aged:55 years) S/o Abdul Gani Dar R/o Ganjipora, Buran Pattan. Pin-193121.

5. Maheena Akhtar (Aged:57 years) D/o Ghulam Mohammad R/o Chattabal, Srinagar Pin-190010

6. Mohammad Ashraf Bhat (Age: 54 years)! S/o Abdul Ahad Bhat R/o Tapper Bala, Pattan, Baramulla 193121.

……Applicant By Advocate : Mr. Bilal A Malla VERSUS

1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through through Commissionary Secretary Rural Development and

Location:

Panchayati Raj Civil Secretariat Jammu/Srinagar-190001.

2. Director, Rural Development Department, Kashmir- 190001. ..….Respondents By Advocate :- Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG

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

01. At the outset, it is noticed from the record that the applicants have filed MA No. 1408/2026 seeking permission to file a joint Original Application. For the reasons stated therein, the said application is allowed.

02. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No. 1, who possesses the qualification of 10+2, was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker in the year 1992 and was subsequently regularized vide Government Order No. 249-RD&PR of 2019 dated 09.05.2019. Applicant No. 2 also possesses the qualification of 10+2 from the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education and was regularized pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order. Applicant No. 3, who was also engaged as a Daily Rated Worker in the respondent department, was similarly

Location:

regularized pursuant to the same Government Order. Applicants Nos. 4 and 5, possessing the requisite qualifications, were regularized against the posts of Helpers, whereas applicant No. 6, who possesses the qualification of Matriculation, was regularized by the competent authority vide Order No. 204-DRDK of 2000 dated 04.08.2000. Copies of the relevant regularization orders and qualification certificates have been annexed with the Original Application.

03. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have, from time to time, sought service particulars of Helpers working in various Block Development Offices through the concerned Assistant Development Commissioners and Block Development Officers for consideration of the issue of redesignation. The applicants contend that they have been continuing against the posts of Helpers for a considerable period and were under the legitimate expectation that their designations would also be changed and corresponding service benefits extended

Location:

to them, in line with the treatment accorded to similarly situated employees.

04. It is submitted that Government Order No. 70-RD&PR of dated 27.02.2014 accorded sanction for redesignation of 945 Helpers of the Rural Development Department as Plantation Supervisors, Plantation Watchers, Malis, Orderlies and Chowkidars. However, the aforesaid Government Order was kept in abeyance vide Government Order No. 190-RD&PR of 2014 dated 18.06.2014, pending an enquiry into the alleged misconduct of certain officials in connection with the redesignation exercise.

05. Learned counsel submits that certain employees, aggrieved by the decision to keep the redesignation order in abeyance, approached the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh by filing SWP No. 1280/2014. Vide order dated 10.08.2017, the Hon’ble High Court took note of the constitution of a committee to review the issue of redesignation in terms of Government

Location:

Order No. 213-RD&PR of 2017 dated 27.07.2017 and directed the committee to proceed with the redesignation exercise, subject to verification of the genuineness of the certificates of the concerned Helpers and consideration of consequential benefits in terms of Government Order No. 70-RD&PR of 2014 dated 27.02.2014.

06. It is further submitted that the committee constituted to review the issue examined the eligibility of the concerned employees and recommended restoration of Government Order No. 70-RD&PR of 2014 dated 27.02.2014. Thereafter, certain employees, aggrieved by the alleged failure of the respondents to give effect to the recommendations of the committee, approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing SWP No. 563/2019, which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 250/2022, titled Ghulam Mohammad Bhat and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others.

07. Learned counsel submits that T.A. No. 250/2022 came up

Location:

for consideration before this Tribunal on 31.07.2023, when the claim for redesignation was considered in the context of the benefit already extended to similarly situated Helpers vide Government Order No. 372-JK (RD&PR) of 2022 dated 01.12.2022. It is further submitted that certain applicants in the aforesaid proceedings initiated contempt proceedings seeking implementation of the directions issued in the matter of Ghulam Mohammad Bhat and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others. Pursuant to the subsequent proceedings, 23 employees were redesignated against various posts vide Government Order No. 445-JK (RD&PR) of 2024 dated 22.11.2024, followed by a corrigendum dated 03.02.2026.

08. Learned counsel further submits that some of the employees whose posts were redesignated have subsequently been promoted to the posts of Panchayat Secretaries. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon Order No. 1812-ACDA of 2026 dated 20.02.2026. It is

Location:

also submitted that the respondents, vide communication No. RDD/Estt/151/2022(207585) dated 17.02.2026, sought detailed service particulars of Smt. Santoshi Kumari, who had been redesignated as Plantation Watcher and regularized vide Order No. 102-DRDK of 2000 dated 08.06.2000, for consideration of her promotion.

09. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid developments demonstrate that the benefit of redesignation has been extended to similarly situated employees and that such redesignation has also had a bearing on their subsequent service progression and promotional avenues. The applicants contend that, despite their repeated representations, the respondents have not considered their claims for redesignation, thereby depriving them of the service benefits available to similarly situated employees.

10. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants seek parity with the employees who have been granted the benefit of redesignation under Government Order No. 70- RD&PR of 2014 dated 27.02.2014 and Government Order

Location:

No. 445-JK (RD&PR) of 2024 dated 22.11.2024, read with the corrigendum dated 03.02.2026. They also seek consequential service benefits, including retrospective benefits or benefits from the date on which similarly situated employees were granted such benefits.

11. It is contended that the continued retention of the applicants against the posts of Helpers, while similarly situated employees have been redesignated and have become eligible for further service benefits in accordance with the applicable rules, amounts to discriminatory treatment. Learned counsel submits that such differential treatment is contrary to the principles of equality and equal opportunity in public employment enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

12. Reliance is also placed upon the order dated 10.03.2026 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 175/2026, titled Irshad Ahmad Dar v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Another, whereby the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the applicants therein for

Location:

change of designation in light of the order dated 15.03.2019 passed in the matter of Ghulam Mohammad Bhat and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others. A copy of the aforesaid order has been annexed with the present Original Application as Annexure A-6.

13. However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the ends of justice would be adequately served if the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation and consider the applicants’ claims for redesignation of their respective posts and grant of consequential service benefits, including the benefits claimed retrospectively or from the date on which similarly situated employees were granted such benefits, in light of the aforesaid order dated 10.03.2026 passed in O.A. No. 175/2026 and the documents annexed to the Original Application, in accordance with law.

14. Mr. Satinder Singh, learned Additional Advocate General,

Location:

appearing on behalf of the respondents 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.

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

16. 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 prayer made on behalf of the applicants.

17. 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 on behalf of the applicants and consider their claims for redesignation of their respective posts in terms of Government Order No. 70-

Location:

RD&PR of 2014 dated 27.02.2014 and Government Order No. 445-JK (RD&PR) of 2024 dated 22.11.2024, read with the corrigendum dated 03.02.2026, as well as their claims for grant of consequential service benefits, including retrospective benefits or benefits from the date on which similarly situated employees were extended such benefits.

18. While considering the aforesaid claims, the respondents shall take into consideration the order dated 10.03.2026 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 175/2026, titled Irshad Ahmad Dar v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Another, a copy whereof is stated to have been annexed as Annexure A-6 at pages 48–56 of the present Original Application, along with the other documents annexed thereto and the relevant Government Orders and judicial directions referred to hereinabove.

19. The respondents shall examine whether the applicants are similarly situated to the employees who have already been granted the benefit of redesignation and whether their

Location:

individual cases are squarely covered by the aforesaid Government Orders, judicial directions and applicable service rules. Such consideration shall be undertaken having regard to the respective service particulars, qualifications, regularization orders, eligibility and entitlement of each applicant. In the event the applicants are found to be similarly situated and entitled to the benefits claimed, and their cases are found to be squarely covered by the applicable orders and law, the respondents shall extend the admissible benefits to them, including consequential service benefits, in accordance with law, subject to fulfilment of the requisite conditions and there being no legal impediment.

20. The respondents shall pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon them.

21. 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

Location:

to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

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

23. No order as to costs.

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

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

21-10-2026 DEVENDRA TRIPATHI

Location: