Central Administrative Tribunal
Bashir Ahmad Beigh vs HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 22 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR
Order Sheet
Item no.: 3
O.A./1165/2026 (SRINAGAR)
[ PROMOTION ]
[ SENIOR CITIZEN ]
Court No.: 1
No of Adjournment:
Order Dated: 22/10/2026
BASHIR AHMAD BEIGH
Vs
HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
For Applicant(s) Advocate : MR. IMAN ABDUL MUZZ
For Respondent(s) Advocate : MR. SYED MUSAIB FOR R1, MS. FARHAT RIYAZ VICE
MR. SHAH AAMIR FOR R2 THROUGH VC
Order of The Tribunal
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.
1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, while holding the post of Instrument Technician in the Drugs and Food Control (Subordinate) Service, was adjusted as Assistant Drug Analyst, a post borne on the Drugs and Food Control (Gazetted) Service, in his own pay and grade, along with certain other employees, on 17.01.2022, being eligible for such adjustment in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Drugs and Food Control (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules then in force. It is submitted that, after serving as Assistant Drug Analyst for more than a year, the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2023.
2. It is further submitted that, subsequently, the employees who had been adjusted as Assistant Drug Inspectors from time to time after 2020, including those who had been adjusted as Assistant Drug Analysts along with the applicant or thereafter, were regularised and granted substantive promotion to the posts of Assistant Drug Analyst with effect from the respective dates of their adjustment in their own pay and grade. However, the applicant has been denied similar treatment despite, as contended, being similarly situated and eligible for the same benefit. It is further submitted that, despite submitting a representation seeking parity with the aforesaid employees, the applicant’s claim has not been considered, resulting in discriminatory treatment and denial of the service benefits to which he claims entitlement.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents is present pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicant.
4. Issue notice.
5. Mr. Syed Musaib, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, and Ms. Farhat Riyaz, appearing through video conferencing on behalf of respondent No. 2 in place of Mr. Shah Aamir, accept notice on behalf of the respective respondents and seek time to file their reply/objections.
6. Accordingly, four weeks’ time is granted to the respondents to file their reply/objections, with an advance copy thereof to be furnished to learned counsel for the applicant.
7. Ms. Farhat Riyaz, learned counsel appearing through video conferencing on behalf of respondent No. 2, submits that a copy of the petition has not been served upon the said respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to furnish a copy of the petition to learned counsel for respondent No. 2 during the course of the day.
9. List on 02.02.2027.
Prasant Kumar Member (A) Justice Ritu Tagore Member (J) Devendra Tripathi ( steno 'd' )