Gulam Ali vs FLORICULTURE PARKS AND GARDEN DEPARTMENT on 29 October 2026

1. Gulam Ali, Age 50 years, S/o Mohd Sharief, R/o village Gurrakra, Jaqssan, Tehsil Gundoh, District Doda. – 182203. …..Applicant (Through Advocate: Mr. Naveen Sharma)

VERSUS

1. Union Territory of J&K through Commissioner/ secretary, Floriculture Department, Civil Secretariat Jammu. -18000l.

2. Union Territory of J&K through Commissioner Secretary, General Administration Department, J&K Govt. Jammu.- 180001.

3. Union Territory of J&K through Deputy Secretary to Govt. BPE & Floriculture Department, Civil secretariat Jammu. – 180001.

4. Director Floriculture & Parks 24/C/C Gandhi Nagar Jammu

- 180001. ..Respondents (Through Advocate: Mr. Sudesh Magotra, learned Addl. A.G.)

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 2 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

O R D E R (Final)

Sh. Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member This is an Original Application filed by the applicant under Section-19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:- “i. By quashing/setting aside the order dated 267-DFJ of 2022 dated 21.07.2022 passed by respondents whereby the case for regularization as contractual employee has been rejected by the respondents; ii. Directing to the respondents to condone the fourteen days break in service by taking a lenient view in view of ill health condition for absence and re-submit the case to appropriate authority for regularization in accordance with (special Jammu and Kashmir civil services provision) Act, 2010; iii. Directing the non-applicants to issue regularization order in favour of the applicant with all consequential benefits from the date the applicant is entitled for regularization in floriculture department; Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble tribunal may deems fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case may kindly passed in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice.” Brief facts of the case, are as follows: -

2. The applicant has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of Order No. 267 - D F J of 2022 dated 21.07.2022, whereby his claim for regularization of service came to be rejected by the respondents. The principal grievance of the applicant is that his case, which had remained under consideration before the departmental authorities for several years and had been processed under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, has ultimately been

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 3 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

rejected only on account of a residual break of 17 days, notwithstanding the fact that the absence in question was occasioned by illness, was supported by medical record, and that a substantial part of the period of absence had already been adjusted by the department under the applicable service provisions.

3. The controversy has a somewhat long factual history, although the immediate issue appears to be confined to a very short period of absence. The applicant claims that, after completing the prescribed six months' basic training course in Floriculture, he was engaged as a Class-IV contractual employee in the Floriculture Department. According to him, his engagement was against a clear vacancy and he continued to discharge his duties satisfactorily for several years. His case was thereafter brought within the regularization mechanism contemplated by the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, which was enacted as a special statutory measure for regularization of eligible employees appointed on ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis. The Act expressly contemplated regularization of persons falling within its statutory framework and prescribed the conditions and procedure for consideration of such cases.

4. The respondents do not dispute the broad history of the applicant's case. Their principal objection is not founded upon any allegation of fraud, fabrication, lack of qualification, absence of a post, or illegality in the applicant's initial engagement. The principal objection is that, after adjustment of the period of absence to the extent permissible under SRO-418, a residual break of 17 days remained and, according to the respondents,

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 4 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

there is no specific provision in the 2010 Act authorizing condonation of such residual break for the purpose of regularization.

5. It is therefore necessary to notice at the outset that the present controversy is not one in which the respondents allege that the applicant had never been entitled to enter the regularization scheme. It is also not a case where the medical certificate relied upon by the applicant has been found fabricated or unreliable. The controversy, in its true perspective, is whether the residual period of 17 days, arising from medically supported absence and remaining after adjustment of 45 days under the applicable service provisions, could by itself be treated as an absolute bar to consideration of the applicant's claim under the 2010 Act.

6. The factual record, as placed before the Tribunal, indicates that the applicant's case was considered at different levels of the departmental machinery. The case was placed before the Empowered Committee constituted under the 2010 Act and was considered in its 38th meeting held on 29.01.2014 and 30.01.2014. Significantly, the case was not rejected on the ground that the applicant's appointment was fraudulent or illegal, that he lacked the requisite qualification, or that there was no post against which he had been engaged. The deficiency noticed in his case essentially concerned the period of break in service and the requirement of dealing with such period in accordance with the applicable rules.

7. The applicant has explained the relevant period of absence on the ground of illness. He claims that during July/August 2006 he remained under medical treatment and that there were

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 5 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

also certain days of absence in January 2008. Medical documents were furnished before the departmental authorities. It is material to notice that the respondents have not specifically disputed the authenticity of the medical certificate. The medical basis of the absence has thus remained a matter of record throughout the departmental proceedings.

8. After the observations of the Empowered Committee, the General Administration Department called upon the concerned department to remove the deficiencies noticed in the cases under consideration. The Director, Floriculture, by communication dated 19.06.2014, supplied the requisite information and medical record relating to the applicant. The matter, therefore, did not come to an end with the proceedings before the Empowered Committee. Rather, the departmental record demonstrates continued administrative consideration of the applicant's case. Thereafter, the General Administration Department advised the department to revisit the proposals and settle the periods of break in respect of the concerned incumbents, where such breaks were attributable to illness, to the extent of entitlement under SRO-418 dated 11.12.2017. The department accordingly re-examined the applicant's case in the light of the applicable leave provisions. Upon such examination, a period of 45 days out of the break was adjusted or settled in terms of the applicable provisions of SRO-418. The only period which thereafter remained to be dealt with was 17 days. This factual position is of considerable significance because it demonstrates that the respondents themselves did not treat the entire period of absence as wholly unauthorized, unexplained or incapable of consideration. On the contrary, the administration

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 6 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

examined the medical circumstances and recognized the legal effect of a substantial part of the period of absence.

9. The applicant's case was thereafter forwarded for consideration of the competent authority in respect of the remaining period. The matter, however, continued to remain pending. The applicant ultimately approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 61/323/2022. The said Original Application was disposed of on 11.04.2022 with a direction to the respondents to consider the applicant's pending representation, along with a copy of the Original Application as an additional representation, and to take a decision in accordance with the applicable rules and provisions within the stipulated period. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondents passed the impugned Order No. 267-DFJ of 2022 dated 21.07.2022. The reasoning adopted therein, as disclosed from the pleadings, is essentially that after adjustment of the period permissible under SRO-418, 17 days still remained and that there was no provision under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 authorizing condonation of the said residual break. On that basis, the applicant's claim for regularization came to be rejected. Submission of the respondents’ : -

10. The respondents' stand is that regularization is not an automatic consequence of long service and that the applicant is required to satisfy the statutory conditions prescribed by the 2010 Act. According to the respondents, since the residual period of 17 days remained after adjustment under SRO-418 and since the 2010 Act does not expressly provide for condonation of

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 7 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

such residual break, the applicant could not be treated as eligible for regularization.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, submits that the approach adopted by the respondents is excessively technical and ignores the factual circumstances in which the break occurred. It is argued that the applicant's absence was due to illness, that the medical record was furnished and its authenticity was not disputed, that the respondents themselves adjusted 45 days of the absence under the applicable rules, and that the remaining 17 days constitute only a short residual period which cannot reasonably be treated as equivalent to abandonment of service or deliberate interruption of employment.

12. It is further contended that the applicant's case had already been brought within the statutory regularization mechanism and had remained under consideration for several years. Learned counsel submits that the applicant cannot be made to suffer for administrative delay, particularly when the authorities themselves repeatedly called for the record, examined the medical documents and reconsidered the matter after issuance of SRO-418.

13. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Mohammad Syed Parrey & Ors., decided on 04.12.2024, and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., decided on 30.01.2026, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in Syed Jameel Qaisar & Ors. v. J&K State Cable Car Corporation Ltd. & Ors., decided on 11.07.2025. These decisions have been relied upon

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 8 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

for the broader propositions concerning interpretation of statutory regularization schemes, fairness in State employment, the obligation of the State to act as a model employer, the doctrine of legitimate expectation, parity and the constitutional protection against arbitrary State action.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the judgments relied upon by the applicant do not create a general right of regularization in favour of contractual employees. It is argued that Uma Devi continues to hold the field and that neither length of service nor equitable considerations can be permitted to override statutory requirements governing public employment. According to the respondents, the absence of an express provision for condonation of the residual break is decisive.

Analysis: -

15. We have considered the rival submissions and have carefully examined the factual and legal aspects of the matter. The following questions arise for determination: “i. whether the applicant otherwise falls within the substantive framework of the 2010 Act;

ii. whether the medically supported residual break of 17 days could lawfully be treated as an absolute bar to consideration of his claim;

iii. whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the claim merely because the 2010 Act does not contain an express provision using the expression "condonation" in

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 9 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

relation to such break; and what relief, in the circumstances, ought to be granted.”

16. Before examining the controversy relating to the 17-day period, it is necessary to appreciate the legislative character of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010. The Act was enacted specifically to provide for regularization of employees appointed on ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis. Its definitions expressly recognized contractual appointees and its substantive provisions prescribed the conditions under which eligible employees could be regularized. The statutory scheme also created an Empowered Committee for scrutiny and verification of cases. Thus, the legislature did not leave the matter entirely to executive discretion but created a structured mechanism for determining eligibility. Section 5 of the Act constituted the substantive heart of the regularization scheme. The statutory conditions included appointment against a clear vacancy, possession of the requisite qualification, fulfilment of the prescribed service requirement and satisfaction of the other conditions specified in the Act. The Act also contemplated the position of employees who had not completed the requisite seven years on the appointed day by making provision for their continuation until completion of the prescribed period. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the very same legislation in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Mohammad Syed Parrey, has explained the significance of the second proviso to Section 5 and held that employees completing the requisite period after the appointed day would be governed by that proviso. The decision in Mohammad Syed Parrey is particularly relevant because it concerns the interpretation of the

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 10 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

very statutory scheme which governs the applicant's claim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with appeals arising from judgments directing regularization under the 2010 Act. The Hon’ble Court examined the statutory scheme and, while considering the operation of the second proviso to Section 5, dismissed the appeals preferred by the State and directed completion of the regularization process expeditiously. The significance of Mohammad Syed Parrey for the present case is not that the factual circumstances are identical. They are not. Its importance lies in the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the statutory scheme itself and has directed that the provisions of the Act be applied according to their true meaning rather than in a manner which would frustrate the statutory entitlement of persons who fall within its ambit.

17. The statutory scheme, therefore, has to be read as a whole. The conditions of Section 5 cannot be divorced from the procedural machinery of Section 10 or from the service rules which govern the underlying employment relationship. The 2010 Act was enacted to regularize eligible contractual, ad hoc and consolidated employees; it was not enacted as a comprehensive code regulating every conceivable aspect of leave, medical absence, interruption of service or treatment of a break. This distinction assumes considerable importance in the present case. The respondents themselves did not regard the 2010 Act as the only legal instrument relevant to the question of continuity of service. Acting upon the advice of the General Administration Department, they examined the applicant's absence under SRO- 418 and adjusted 45 days. Having adopted the service-rule framework for determining the legal effect of the absence, the

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 11 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

respondents could not thereafter proceed on the assumption that every aspect of the break was necessarily outside the scope of consideration merely because the expression "condonation" did not find specific mention in the 2010 Act.

18. The respondents' approach essentially treats the 2010 Act and the service rules as occupying mutually exclusive fields. Such an approach, in our view, is not justified. The 2010 Act determines whether an employee falls within the statutory regularization scheme and satisfies its substantive requirements. The service rules, on the other hand, may determine how periods of absence are to be treated for purposes of service continuity. The two legal frameworks operate in their respective fields and have to be harmoniously applied.

19. The question is whether the respondents, while applying the statutory regularization scheme, correctly determined the legal consequence of a short period of medically supported absence which had already been substantially adjusted under the applicable service rules. The answer must necessarily depend upon the nature of the absence. An employee who deliberately abandons service, remains absent without authority, or commits an act which under the applicable rules results in forfeiture of continuity of service stands on a materially different footing from an employee whose absence is occasioned by illness, supported by medical documents and partly regularized by the employer. The record before us falls within the latter category. The respondents have not disputed the medical certificate. They have not alleged that the applicant fabricated the medical record. They have not treated the entire absence as unauthorized. They have themselves adjusted 45 days. The

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 12 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

remaining 17 days are therefore not a case of unexplained absence in the ordinary sense. They represent a residual period remaining after the administration had already recognized the medical circumstances to a substantial extent.

20. The respondents have not pointed out to any provision of the 2010 Act which expressly declares that every interruption of service, regardless of its cause, duration or treatment under the service rules, shall operate as a permanent bar to regularization. Nor have they demonstrated that the applicable service rules make a medically supported residual period of 17 days an incurable disqualification for the purposes of the statutory scheme.

21. What the respondents have established is only that the 2010 Act does not contain a separate provision expressly empowering the authority to condone "17 days" for the purpose of regularization. In our considered opinion, that proposition, by itself, does not answer the real question. The absence of an express provision for "condonation" cannot be converted into an automatic prohibition unless the statutory scheme necessarily requires such interpretation. Beneficial legislation is not to be construed so narrowly that the very class intended to be protected is excluded by a technical interpretation unrelated to the substantive conditions of eligibility.

22. On the material placed before us, there is no finding by the respondents that the applicant was ineligible on account of lack of qualification, absence of a sanctioned post, fraud, manipulation, pending disciplinary proceedings or any other substantive disqualification under the Act. Indeed, the history of departmental processing shows that his case was considered

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 13 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

under the statutory mechanism itself. The fact that the applicant's case was placed before the Empowered Committee is significant. If the applicant were wholly outside the statutory framework, there would have been no occasion to process his case through the machinery contemplated by the Act. The subsequent correspondence also demonstrates that the authorities were attempting to remove the deficiency relating to the period of absence rather than rejecting the applicant at the threshold as being outside the scheme. The administrative conduct is therefore consistent with the applicant's contention that his case was substantively within the regularization framework and that the principal obstacle was the treatment of the break in service.

23. It is also necessary to notice the prolonged administrative history of the matter. The applicant's case was examined in 2014. Medical documents were furnished. The department was required to supply further information. The matter was thereafter revisited in the light of SRO-418 in 2017. The period of absence was examined and 45 days were adjusted. The remaining period was identified and the case was again placed before the competent authority. Eventually, the applicant approached this Tribunal, which directed the respondents to take a decision. Such a course of events cannot be treated as irrelevant. Administrative authorities are expected to decide statutory claims within a reasonable time. An employee cannot reasonably be expected to bear indefinitely the uncertainty created by an unresolved departmental process and then be told, after several years, that the matter must be treated as though no consideration had ever taken place. The principle against

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 14 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

arbitrary administrative delay is particularly relevant where the delay is not attributable to the applicant. Nothing before us establishes that the applicant deliberately delayed the departmental process or withheld any document. On the contrary, the record indicates repeated correspondence between different authorities concerning his case.

24. The respondents cannot derive an advantage from an administrative process which they themselves kept alive for years. Once an authority has consciously undertaken consideration of a statutory claim, it is required to bring that consideration to a lawful and reasoned conclusion. It cannot reduce the exercise to a mechanical rejection based upon one isolated circumstance without considering the context in which that circumstance arose.

25. The present case has an additional feature. The applicant is not seeking regularization solely on the strength of long service or legitimate expectation. His claim was expressly processed under a statutory regularization scheme enacted by the erstwhile State. The question, therefore, is not whether a contractual employee can claim permanence merely because he has worked for several years. The question is whether an employee who was brought within a statutory regularization mechanism can be denied consideration under that mechanism solely because of a short, medically supported residual break. In this context, the doctrine of legitimate expectation has a limited but relevant role. Legitimate expectation cannot create a substantive right contrary to statute. It can, however, inform the requirement of fair administrative decision-making. Where an authority has repeatedly processed a claim under a particular

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 15 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

statutory framework and has itself taken steps to regularize part of the deficiency, the employee has at least a legitimate expectation that the remaining aspect will be examined rationally and not rejected by a purely technical formula. The principle of legitimate expectation is particularly relevant where the conduct of the public authority has induced an employee to believe that his claim remains under genuine consideration. It would be inconsistent with fairness if, after years of departmental processing, the authority were permitted to terminate the process by relying upon a narrow interpretation which it had not earlier treated as an absolute bar.

26. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh in Syed Jameel Qaisar & Ors. v. J&K State Cable Car Corporation Ltd. & Ors., decided on 11.07.2025, also deserves consideration. In that case, the Hon’ble High Court examined the position of contractual employees who had been appointed against available vacancies and had rendered long service. The Court considered the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments, the principles of legitimate expectation and parity, and the obligation of State instrumentalities to act consistently with Article 14. The writ petition was ultimately allowed in the circumstances of that case. We are conscious that Syed Jameel Qaisar arose in a different factual setting and cannot be treated as creating an independent universal right to regularization. Its relevance is confined to the principle that the Court must examine the substance of the employment relationship and the conduct of the public authority rather than allowing the contractual label to conclude the entire constitutional inquiry.

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 16 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

27. The Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, remains the starting point for any consideration of regularization in public employment. The Constitution Bench made it clear that public employment must ordinarily conform to the constitutional requirements of equality of opportunity and that courts should not ordinarily direct regularization of persons who entered service through an illegal or backdoor route. At the same time, paragraph 53 recognized the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments and referred to duly qualified persons working against duly sanctioned vacant posts for ten years or more without intervention of courts. The principle in Uma Devi therefore operates as a safeguard against backdoor entry and not as a licence for the State to disregard a statutory regularization scheme enacted specifically for contractual employees. Where the legislature itself has created a special statutory route for regularization, the statutory scheme must be applied according to its terms.

28. The applicant's case must accordingly be distinguished from a case in which a person seeks regularization merely because he has continued in service for a long period despite an appointment which was wholly illegal. There is no such finding in the present case. The respondents have not established that the applicant's entry into service was fraudulent, clandestine or dehors the constitutional scheme. The applicant's training in Floriculture and his engagement as a Class-IV employee are matters reflected in the departmental record. There is no finding that he lacked the prescribed qualification. There is also no material before us demonstrating that his services were not

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 17 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

required or that he was engaged against a non-existent post. The entire administrative processing of his claim proceeded upon the assumption that his case was one requiring consideration under the regularization framework.

29. The contractual character of the appointment, therefore, cannot by itself defeat the applicant's case. The relevant question is whether, apart from the disputed period of absence, the applicant fulfilled the substantive requirements of the 2010 Act. On this aspect, it is necessary to distinguish between "continuity of service" and "physical attendance on every calendar day". Service law recognizes various forms of leave and authorized absence. An employee does not cease to be in service merely because he is absent on medical grounds for a period which is treated as leave under the applicable rules. The legal effect of a period of absence depends upon the governing service rules and the orders passed by the competent authority. The respondents themselves recognized this principle when they adjusted 45 days of the applicant's absence under SRO-418. That adjustment necessarily involved recognition that the relevant period could be legally dealt with under the service framework. Once that position is accepted, the residual 17 days could not logically be treated as though the entire period had been an unauthorized interruption from the beginning.

30. The question, therefore, becomes one of proportionality. Was it reasonable and legally justified to treat 17 days of medically supported residual absence as sufficient to destroy an otherwise substantive claim under a beneficial regularization statute, particularly when the department had accepted 45 days of the same absence for purposes of service treatment?

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 18 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

31. In our considered view, the answer is in the negative, at least on the reasoning contained in the impugned order. If the respondents considered that the remaining 17 days necessarily destroyed the applicant's statutory eligibility, they were required to identify the specific statutory or service-rule provision producing that consequence and to explain why the medical circumstances, the adjustment of 45 days, the long period of service and the previous departmental processing could not affect the conclusion. The impugned order, as placed before us does not undertake such an exercise. It essentially proceeds from the proposition that because the 2010 Act contains no express provision authorizing condonation, the applicant cannot be regularized. This approach, in our view, fails to distinguish between the absence of a specific enabling provision and the existence of a specific statutory prohibition.

32. There is a substantial difference between saying that an authority has no power to ignore a mandatory statutory disqualification and saying that the authority has no power to consider a service interruption because the word "condonation" is absent from the regularization statute. The former may be correct where the statute expressly provides for such consequence; the latter does not necessarily follow. The respondents were required to read the regularization statute together with the applicable service rules. If, upon such examination, the rules permitted the residual period to be regularized, treated as leave, condoned or otherwise dealt with for purposes of continuity, the applicant's claim could not be rejected merely because the 2010 Act did not repeat the same mechanism.

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 19 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

33. The fact that the General Administration Department itself directed examination of the break under SRO-418 demonstrates that the administration understood the matter to require application of the service framework. The subsequent rejection, therefore, required a reasoned explanation as to why the residual period, though arising from the same medical circumstances, should be treated differently from the 45 days already adjusted. The distinction between the 45-day period and the residual 17- day period cannot rest solely upon arithmetic. The authority had to examine the legal nature of the remaining period. A shortfall in leave entitlement may have consequences under the service rules, but it does not necessarily follow that the employee thereby becomes permanently disentitled to consideration under a special regularization statute.

34. The respondents have not placed before us any finding that the applicant deliberately remained absent for the residual 17 days after being directed to resume duty. Nor is there a finding that he had abandoned service. Nor is there a finding of misconduct. The medical circumstances were already part of the departmental record.

35. It is true that sympathy cannot replace statutory requirements. This Tribunal cannot regularize a person merely because he was ill or because the remaining break is short. But that is not the basis on which the present matter is being decided. The conclusion is founded upon the cumulative circumstances: the applicant's case was within the statutory regularization process; his medical explanation was supported by record; 45 days were adjusted by the department; the remaining period was only 17 days; the matter remained pending

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 20 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

for years; and the rejection was based principally upon the absence of an express condonation provision in the 2010 Act. The cumulative effect of these circumstances makes the impugned order vulnerable to judicial review on the ground of non-application of mind and arbitrariness.

36. We also find it necessary to address the discrepancy in the applicant's prayer regarding the number of days. The prayer portion apparently refers to fourteen days, whereas the factual pleadings and the departmental exercise relied upon by both sides disclose a residual period of 17 days after adjustment of 45 days. Since the departmental figure of 17 days is the figure emerging from the record, the present adjudication proceeds on that basis. The discrepancy in the prayer cannot, by itself, defeat the substantive claim where the actual controversy between the parties is clearly identifiable.

37. The next aspect concerns parity. The applicant has alleged that similarly situated employees have been extended the benefit of regularization by taking a lenient view of short breaks. The respondents have disputed this assertion and have stated that two other employees were also not regularized and that no similarly situated employee in the department has received such benefit. In view of this disputed factual position, we do not propose to record a definitive finding that the applicant has established discrimination on the basis of parity. However, the allegation cannot simply be ignored. If there are employees who were appointed in substantially identical circumstances, who had comparable service records and whose breaks were treated differently for purposes of regularization, the respondents are constitutionally obliged to explain the distinction. Article 14 does

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 21 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

not require mechanical identical treatment in all circumstances. It requires that persons similarly situated be treated alike unless there exists an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The respondents, while reconsidering the applicant's case, shall therefore verify the factual position concerning similarly situated employees and record appropriate reasons if differential treatment is found.

38. The doctrine of legitimate expectation also cannot be invoked as an independent substitute for statutory eligibility. However, where the State has created a statutory mechanism, processed an employee's case under that mechanism and kept the matter under consideration for years, the manner in which the authority ultimately departs from that course is relevant to the legality of its decision. The State, as a model employer, is expected to act with fairness.

39. The present case does not require us to hold that the applicant had an unconditional right to regularization from the date of his appointment. Such a conclusion would be legally impermissible. What we hold is narrower: once the applicant's claim had entered the statutory regularization process and once the only surviving objection was a medically supported residual period of 17 days, the respondents were required to examine that objection in a legally complete and constitutionally fair manner.

40. The impugned order fails this test. It does not sufficiently examine whether the residual break constituted a mandatory statutory disqualification. It does not adequately address the effect of the medical record. It does not explain why the 45 days were adjusted while the remaining 17 days necessarily destroyed the applicant's eligibility. It does not sufficiently consider the fact

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 22 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

that the applicant's case had remained under consideration for several years. Nor does it address the broader object of the 2010 Act. Administrative orders affecting substantive service rights must disclose reasons. The requirement of a reasoned order is not a mere procedural formality. Reasons demonstrate that the authority has considered the relevant material and has arrived at its conclusion by a lawful process. An order which merely states the conclusion without dealing with the decisive factual and legal considerations cannot ordinarily withstand judicial review.

41. Having considered the pleadings, the material available on record and the rival submissions, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the applicant's claim cannot be defeated merely on account of the residual period of 17 days. The applicant was engaged as a Class-IV contractual employee after completing the prescribed training and his case was processed under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010. There is no finding that his initial engagement was fraudulent, clandestine or otherwise illegal, nor has it been shown that he lacked the requisite qualification or that the post against which he was engaged was non-existent. His case was placed before the Empowered Committee and remained under consideration at various levels of the administration for several years.

42. The material further establishes that the period of absence was occasioned by illness and was supported by medical documentation. The authenticity of the medical record has not been disputed by the respondents. More importantly, the respondents themselves, upon application of SRO-418 dated

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 23 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

11.12.2017, adjusted 45 days out of the period of absence. The only period which remained thereafter was 17 days. The said residual period arose out of the same medical circumstances and was not shown to be the result of abandonment of service, misconduct, deliberate unauthorized absence or any other act disentitling the applicant to the benefit of the statutory scheme.

43. The rejection of the applicant's claim solely on the ground that the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 did not expressly contain a provision authorizing "condonation" of the remaining 17 days is, in the facts of the present case, legally unsustainable. The 2010 Act prescribed the substantive conditions for regularization; it did not constitute an exhaustive code governing every aspect of leave, medical absence or service continuity. The respondents themselves recognized the applicability of the service rules when they adjusted 45 days under SRO-418. Having done so, they could not treat the remaining 17 days as an absolute statutory disqualification without demonstrating the existence of a mandatory provision producing such consequence.

44. The Tribunal is not creating a new power of regularization or condonation contrary to the statute. Rather, it is holding that the respondents adopted an erroneous and disproportionately technical interpretation of the statutory scheme. A short, medically supported residual period, arising from circumstances already accepted in substantial part by the employer, cannot be elevated into an incurable disqualification in the absence of a clear statutory mandate. Such an approach would defeat the beneficial object of the regularization legislation and would amount to allowing a minor service-record deficiency to override

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 24 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

the substantive entitlement of an employee who otherwise falls within the statutory framework.

45. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Mohammad Syed Parrey & Ors., decided on 04.12.2024, are particularly relevant because the said judgment concerns the interpretation of the very statutory scheme under which the applicant's claim was processed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the operation of the statutory conditions contained in Section 5 and directed completion of the regularization process in accordance with the scheme of the Act. The judgment reinforces the proposition that the statutory framework cannot be applied in a manner which defeats the entitlement of employees falling within its protective ambit by adopting an unduly restrictive interpretation.

46. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., decided on 30.01.2026, further reinforces the constitutional obligation of the State to act as a model employer. The contractual character of an appointment cannot, by itself, place the State beyond the discipline of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Where the State has continued to utilize the services of an employee over a prolonged period and has itself created and maintained the statutory and administrative framework for dealing with his service status, its action must remain fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary. Likewise, the principles emerging from Syed Jameel Qaisar & Ors. v. J&K State Cable Car Corporation Ltd. & Ors., decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on 11.07.2025, support the proposition that the Court must examine the

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 25 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

substance of the employment relationship, the circumstances of initial appointment, availability of the post, length and quality of service, legitimate expectation and the conduct of the employer, rather than allowing the bare description of an employee as "contractual" to determine the entire controversy. This Tribunal is conscious of the binding principles enunciated by the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Regularization cannot ordinarily be ordered merely because a person has continued in service for a long period, particularly where the initial appointment itself was illegal or amounted to backdoor entry. The present case, however, stands on a different footing. The applicant's claim is not founded merely upon length of service. His claim was processed under a specific statutory regularization scheme enacted by the erstwhile State for contractual, ad hoc and consolidated employees. No finding of illegal entry, fraud, manipulation, lack of qualification or absence of a post has been recorded against him. The objection which ultimately survived was confined to the residual period of 17 days.

47. The subsequent repeal of the 2010 Act also does not defeat the applicant's claim. His case had already been initiated and processed during the currency of the enactment. It had been placed before the Empowered Committee in 2014 and continued to remain under administrative consideration thereafter. The applicant's claim therefore relates to a right and statutory process which had already been set in motion before repeal and cannot be treated as a fresh claim instituted after repeal. We are, therefore, satisfied that the applicant fulfilled the substantive requirements of the statutory regularization scheme, subject only to the disputed treatment of the residual break. We further

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 26 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

hold that the residual period of 17 days, arising from medically supported absence and remaining after adjustment of 45 days under SRO-418, cannot be treated as an incurable break so as to defeat the applicant's entitlement to regularization. The said period shall accordingly be treated as duly condoned/regularized for the purpose of continuity of service and consideration of the applicant's regularization under the 2010 Act.

48. The applicant's entitlement is not being left to the discretion of the respondents. In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is entitled to regularization under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010. The respondents are consequently directed to issue an order of regularization in favour of the applicant against the post against which he was engaged, with effect from the date on which he became eligible for regularization under the statutory scheme, after giving continuity of service by treating the residual period of 17 days as duly condoned/regularized.

49. The respondents shall issue the formal order of regularization within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The regularization shall not be made dependent upon any further consideration, discretion or fresh adjudication by the respondents, as the entitlement of the applicant stands determined by this judgment.

50. Consequently, the applicant shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits flowing from such regularization in accordance with law, including fixation of his service and seniority from the date of regularization and all other attendant benefits admissible under the applicable service rules. The

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 27 ::

OA No. 61/343/2023

respondents shall also work out the monetary consequences arising from the regularization as per rules and release the benefits found admissible to the applicant within a further period of three months. Accordingly, Order No. 267-DFJ of 2022 dated 21.07.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. The residual break of 17 days in the applicant's service is hereby held to be condoned/regularized for purposes of continuity of service, and the respondents are directed to regularize the applicant's services under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 with effect from the date on which he became entitled to such regularization, together with all consequential service benefits in accordance with law. The Original Application is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(DIWAKAR SINGH) (RAM MOHAN JOHRI) Judicial Member Administrative Member RS Pathania Steno-D

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA