Shafiq Ahmad Khan vs HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 27 October 2026

ORDER

(Oral)

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)

The applicants, 05 (five) in number, have filed the instant O.A. Since the cause of action and reliefs claimed by all the applicants are identical, the M.A. for joint application under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, is allowed.

2. Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant seeks the following reliefs:

a. Allow the Original Application and it be deciared that the contractual service period rendered by the applicants prior to their regularization be counted towards payment of their pensionary benefits.

b. Any other writ, direction or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicants and against the respondents' along-with the cost of litigation.

ABHISHEK PUNIA

3. The facts as narrated in the O.A. are that the applicants were initially appointed as contractual/ad hoc employees in the School Education Department after being selected through the District Selection Committee and their appointments were initially for a period of one year or until a regular selection was made, whichever was earlier. However, as stated, no regular selection process was undertaken by the Government, and their appointments continued through successive extensions. Subsequently, pursuant to the recommendations of the Empowered Committee constituted vide Government Order No. 1423-GAD of 2009 dated 14.10.2009, their services were regularized under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010. It is added that although their cases were approved for regularization, the orders were given prospective effect from different dates, thereby depriving them of the benefit of their past continuous service.

4. It is averred that the Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003, were formulated vide SRO 255, and the applicants were engaged pursuant to the prescribed selection

ABHISHEK PUNIA

process under the said Rules. The applicants submit that Section 10(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, mandated the concerned departments to refer the cases of eligible ad hoc, contractual and consolidated employees to the Member Secretary for placement before the Empowered Committee for scrutiny and verification of their eligibility for regularization under Section 5 of the Act. As stated, the reference was required to be made within 60 (sixty) days from the commencement of the Act on 28.04.2010.

5. It is contended in the O.A. that the statutory process contemplated under Section 10 of the Act was required to be completed within the prescribed period. However, the respondents failed to adhere to the stipulated time period. It is stated that, although the Empowered Committee subsequently cleared and approved their cases for regularization, the final orders were issued after considerable delay and made effective prospectively from different dates, as reflected in the schedule mentioned in the O.A. It is further added that the delay was entirely attributable to administrative inaction and procedural

ABHISHEK PUNIA

lapses on the part of the respondents and that no fault or delay could be attributed to the applicants.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that vide SRO 400 dated 24.12.2009, amendments were introduced in the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Rules, whereby Article 167 Exception (6) was incorporated, whereby Government employees appointed or brought on the regular establishment on or after 01.01.2010 were made to be governed by the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, to the exclusion of the pre-existing pension rules. He submitted that because as per the regularization orders, the applicants were given prospective effect from dates falling after the prescribed cut-off date, they have been deprived of the benefit of the old pensionary regime, notwithstanding their earlier entry into service and the continuous service rendered by them before regularization.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the expression “regularization of services” employed under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, inherently signifies that the applicants have been continuously serving the

ABHISHEK PUNIA

State of Jammu and Kashmir as public servants and by virtue of the issuance of their regularization orders, their past continuous service stands regularized. He submits that their initial engagements followed a formal selection process conducted by the District Selection Committee, having successfully faced a comprehensive screening process and on this basis, the applicants claim that their past service ought to be counted for determining their entitlement to pensionary benefits and that the prospective dates assigned to their regularization orders cannot be used to deprive them of such benefits.

8. It is further averred that the Jammu and Kashmir Education (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008, prescribe the methods of recruitment as direct recruitment, promotion or a combination of both, but does not say that the appointment would include regularization. It is added that regularization under the Act of 2010 merely recognizes the services already rendered by them and, therefore, their initial entry into service after undergoing the selection process should be considered for determining the applicable pension scheme. In support of their claim, they rely

ABHISHEK PUNIA

upon the judgment in M.K. Shamaugen & Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., State of H. P. v. Sheela Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272, and S. D. Jayaprakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., contending that the legal position laid down therein supports their claim for counting the service rendered before regularization. It is further stated in the O.A. that the respondents' action in giving prospective effect to the regularization orders, coupled with the application of the amended pension rules, has resulted in unequal treatment and infringed their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

9. It is further stated that the applicants submitted a detailed representation dated 03.11.2025 to respondent no. 4, followed by another representation dated 19.05.2026, seeking consideration of their claim for counting the period of contractual/ad hoc service rendered before regularization towards the computation of pensionary benefits and for determination of their entitlement under the applicable pension rules. As stated, despite these representations, the respondents have neither redressed their grievance nor communicated any decision on their claim.

ABHISHEK PUNIA

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he would be satisfied, if the O.A. is taken up for its disposal at the threshold, while directing the respondents to treat this O.A. as a representation.

11. Heard.

12. At the request of learned counsel for the applicants, the O.A. is taken up for its disposal.

13. The O.A. is disposed of by providing that the respondents shall treat this O.A. as a representation along with the other representations filed by the applicants, who shall consider and decide the case of the applicants in accordance with law, keeping in view the merits of the case and the eligibility/entitlements of the applicants. The above exercise shall be concluded by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of 08 (eight) weeks from the date a certified copy of this Order is served upon the respondents. Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the case and it is up to the respondents to decide the case of the applicants strictly in accordance with the rules governing the field.

ABHISHEK PUNIA

14. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1172/2026 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.

(Prasant Kumar) Member (Admn.) (M.S. Latif) Member (Judl.)

Abhishek Punia Court Master 27.10.2026

ABHISHEK PUNIA