MUSHTAQ AHMAD SHAH vs SKILL DEVELOPMENT on 30 October 2026

1. Mushtaq Ahmad Shah, aged 56 years, S/o Late Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah, R/o Rohama Rafiabad, Baramulla, J&K, PIN 193301.

2. Parvaise Ahmad Bhat, aged 53 years, S/o Ghulam Nabi Bhat, R/o Baramulla, J&K, PIN 193101.

3. Delair Singh, aged 58 years, S/o Mohinder Singh, R/o Kanlibagh, Baramulla, J&K, PIN 193101

4. Nisar Ahmad Sofi, aged 56 years, S/o Late Haji Mohd. Khalil Sofi, R/o Sangri Colony, Baramulla, J&K, PIN 193101.

5. Mushtaq Ahmad Reshi, aged 61 years, S/o Ghulam Rasool Reshi, R/o Dialgam, Anantnag, J&K, PIN 192210.

6. Adfar Ahmad Tibetbakal, aged 54 years, S/o Ghulam Rasool Tibetbakal. R/o Nagbal, Ganderbal, J&K, PIN 191021. .… Applicant

By Advocate : Mr. S M Saleem

VERSUS

1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, through Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Skill Development Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar, 180001/190001

2. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner Secretary to Government General

SHUBHAM SHARMA

Administration Department, Civil Secretariat Jammu/Srinagar, 180001/190001|

3. Director, Skill Development Department, Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir. ....Respondents

By Advocate :-Mr. Furkan Yaqub Sofi, GA

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

01. The case of the applicants, as projected in the O.A., is that they were initially appointed/engaged in the Skill Development Department in the years 1993 onwards and continued to render their services under the respective engagement arrangements reflected in their departmental records.

02. Learned counsel submitted that the applicants subsequently continued in the Department and were appointed, posted or adjusted against available vacancies, on the respective dates reflected in their service records, and their services were thereafter regularized through separate orders issued in December 2017 and March 2018.

03. It is contended that their initial dates of appointment/engagement, falling in the years 1993, 1996 and 2003, constitute a material circumstance for determining their qualifying period of service, subject to continuity of their service, the nature of their initial engagement and fulfillment of the

SHUBHAM SHARMA

applicable statutory conditions. It is further contended that, reckoned from their respective initial dates of engagement, the applicants would ordinarily have completed seven years of service during the year 2010, although the exact date of completion of the requisite period in each individual case is required to be determined on the basis of the original departmental records and the applicable statutory provisions.

04. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the subsequent appointment or posting of the applicants against available vacancies during the year 2006 is distinct from their initial appointment/engagement in the years 1993, 1996 and 2003, and that the legal effect of their initial engagement vis-à-vis their subsequent appointment, particularly for determining the date from which their qualifying service is to be reckoned, requires consideration in accordance with the applicable law and the relevant departmental records.

05. It is also submitted that the posts against which the concerned individuals were working had been created and financial concurrence for absorption of individuals working in the Department had been accorded during the period 1993–1995, as reflected in the relevant Government records. The applicants rely upon these circumstances as part of the background relating to the creation and sanction of posts and the administrative framework governing their absorption, and contend that the respondents are required to examine the relevant post-creation orders, financial

SHUBHAM SHARMA

concurrence, appointment orders and service records while determining their claims. The applicants, however, do not claim that the aforesaid post-creation orders and financial concurrence, by themselves, establish their individual dates of appointment or confer an automatic entitlement to retrospective regularization, but submit that the same are relevant circumstances to be considered in the light of the actual documents and applicable statutory provisions.

06. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 was enacted to provide for regularization of eligible ad hoc, contractual and consolidated appointees, subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein. Section 5 of the said Act lays down the conditions governing regularization, including the requirements relating to appointment against a clear vacancy or post, possession of prescribed qualifications, continuation in service and other statutory conditions. The applicants contend that their claims are required to be considered in the light of the applicable provisions of the said Act, particularly the relevant provisos to Section 5, read with the other applicable provisions and the binding judicial interpretation thereof. It is submitted that although the services of the applicants were regularized through orders issued in December 2017 and March 2018, their cases require examination to determine whether the effective dates of regularization were correctly fixed in accordance with

SHUBHAM SHARMA

the applicable statutory provisions and the legal position subsequently clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

07. It is submitted that the applicants had earlier approached this Hon'ble Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1077/2022, seeking relief in relation to the effective dates of their regularization; however, the said Original Application was dismissed vide order dated 15.04.2024 (Annexure-4). It is however, submitted that the present O.A. is founded upon subsequent judicial and administrative developments, including the judgment dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others v. Mohammad Syed Parrey & Others, Civil Appeal No. 13798 of 2024, arising out of SLP (C) No. 8720 of 2021, the subsequent dismissal of the review petition on 03.02.2026 and the Government's consequential implementation decision culminating in Government Order No. 58-JK (DSD) of 2026 dated 12.10.2026.

08. The applicants rely upon the aforesaid judgment for the authoritative interpretation of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, particularly the distinction between the categories of employees covered under the relevant provisos to Section 5 of the Act. They accordingly seek consideration of the effect of these subsequent judicial and administrative developments upon their claims, including the questions of maintainability, limitation and the legal effect of the dismissal of their earlier O.A.

SHUBHAM SHARMA

09. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that, following the aforesaid judicial developments, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir examined the implications of the judgment in respect of eligible employees whose effective dates of regularization required consideration or revision. In this regard, the Finance Department, vide U.O. No. FD-Code-273/2026-12/1499 dated 23.04.2026, considered the treatment of employees falling within the relevant categories under the statutory scheme, whereas the General Administration Department, vide U.O. No. GAD-CORD/103/2026 dated 11.10.2026, conveyed approval for implementation of the judgment in respect of eligible employees belonging to different Government Departments, including the Skill Development Department. Pursuant to the aforesaid developments, it is submitted that the Skill Development Department issued Government Order No. 58-JK (DSD) of 2026 dated 12.10.2026, whereby revised effective dates of regularization were granted to Ms. Archana Devi and Mr. Ishfaq Ahmad Reshi.

10. It is contended that the cases of the applicants require individual examination in the light of the applicable statutory framework and the relevant Government implementation criteria, the respondents do not seek automatic extension of the benefit granted to any other employee without verification of their respective service particulars. The applicants contend that the nature and terms of

SHUBHAM SHARMA

their initial appointment/engagement, continuity of service and the legal effect of their subsequent appointment or posting against available vacancies are the matters which require verification by the respondents. If upon such verification, the applicants are found to fulfill the applicable statutory and Government implementation conditions, their claims are required to be determined in accordance with the binding judicial decisions and consequential decision taken by the Government.

11. The applicants, therefore, assert that the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Government's implementation decision have given rise to a grievance on account of the respondents' failure to consider their claims in the light of the subsequently clarified and implemented legal position. They accordingly seek a lawful determination of the effect of these developments upon their claims.

12. Against this backdrop, the applicants have approach this Tribunal by way of the instant petition, seeking the following reliefs-

a) Issue an appropriate order or direction commanding the respondents to consider and determine the applicants' entitlement to revision of their effective dates of regularization under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, in the light of the judgment dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of

SHUBHAM SHARMA

Jammu and Kashmir & Others v. Mohammad Syed Parrey & Others, the subsequent dismissal of the review petition and the Government implementation decision culminating in Government Order No. 58-JK (DSD) of 2026 dated 12.10.2026.

b) Direct the respondents to examine the original engagement orders, appointment orders, subsequent posting orders, service books and other relevant records of each applicant and determine the respective qualifying dates of appointment/engagement, continuity of service and eligibility under the applicable statutory provisions.

c) Upon finding the applicants eligible under the applicable statutory scheme and Government implementation decision, direct the respondents to revise their effective dates of regularization from the respective dates legally admissible under the Act of 2010 and the applicable judicial and administrative directions.

d) Direct the respondents to consider the applicants' claims by applying the applicable eligibility criteria governing the employees covered by Government Order No. 58-JK (DSD) of 2026 dated 12.10.2026, subject to verification of the applicants' individual service particulars and statutory eligibility.

e) Direct the respondents, where an applicant is found entitled to a revised effective date of regularization, to determine and grant the consequential service and monetary benefits admissible under the applicable rules, together with appropriate correction of service records and fixation of benefits.

SHUBHAM SHARMA

f) Direct the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the applicants' claims within a time-bound period fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, after examining the relevant service records, the applicable judicial decisions and the Government implementation orders.

g) Direct that the applicants' claims shall not be rejected solely on the ground that their original regularization orders were issued in 2017 or 2018 without examining the applicability and effect of the subsequent judgment and Government implementation decision.

h) Pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just, proper and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

13. Learned counsel for the applicant argued the matter at length and submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if the present O.A. is treated as a representation and the respondents are directed to consider and decide the same within a stipulated time frame, in light of the averments made therein, along with the documents annexed and the law applicable in the instant case.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Furkan Yaqub Sofi, G.A. submits that, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, the respondents have no objection if the present O.A. is treated as a representation and is disposed of in terms of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

SHUBHAM SHARMA

16. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present O.A. may be disposed of at this stage by treating the same as a representation.

17. Accordingly, without entering in the merits of the case, the present O.A. is disposed of with a direction to respondents to treat this O.A. as representation and to consider and determine the applicants’ claims as raised therein for revision of their respective effective dates of regularization under the 2010 Act, in the light of the judgment dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Government Order dated 12.10.2026.

18. While undertaking the exercise, the respondents shall examine the relevant engagement/appointment orders, posting orders, service books and other records of the applicants, determine their respective dates of engagement, continuity of service and eligibility in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and administrative instructions, and consider the claim of parity with similarly situated employees, wherever applicable. The respondents shall also examine whether the judgments relied by them is applicable to their respective cases, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the each case.

19. Upon such consideration, the respondents shall pass a speaking and reasoned order in respect of each applicant, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

SHUBHAM SHARMA

20. It is clarified that this direction shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the applicants’ claims, which shall be decided independently by the competent authority in accordance with law.

21. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1212/2026 is disposed of. M.A./1468/2026 seeking joint application is also allowed. No order as to costs.

22. Consign the file to the Record Room, after due compliance.

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

Shubhamsharma

SHUBHAM SHARMA