Central Administrative Tribunal
Suraya Jabeen vs D/o State Mission Director Icds, Jaamu & Kashmir on 30 December 2020
:: 1 ::
T.A. No. 62/9285/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU
Hearing through video conferencing
T.A. No. 62/9285/2020
This the 30th day of December, 2020
HON’BLE MR. RAKESH SAGAR JAIN, MEMBER (J)
Suraya Jabeen (Age 53 years)
D/o Mohammed Ashraf Khan
R/o Nawabazar, Kala Sathu, Srinagar.
........................Applicant
(Advocate: Mr. Shuja Ul Haq)
Versus
1.
State of Jammu & Kashmir
Through Secretary to Government,
Department of Social Welfare, Civil
Secretariat, Srinagar/ Jammu.
2.
State Mission Director,
ICDS, Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar.
3.
Deputy Director, (Adm)
ICDS, Kashmir.
...................Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG)
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]
:: 2 ::
During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if the respondents are 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/-