Shabir Ahmad Rather vs PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT R AND B on 30 October 2026

1. Shabir Ahmad Rather, aged about 52 years, S/o Gh. Mohd Rather, R/o H.No. 47 Hakpora, District Pulwama; presently working as Assistant Engineer PMGSY Division in the R&B Pulwama, posted at Pin 192301. Phone no: 7006424899.

2. Parvaz Ahmed S/o Gulzar Ahmed, R/o H. No 0040 Master Colony Shar Shali, Tehsil Pampore, Dist. Pulwama, Pin-Code 191103; In charge AE R&B Division Awantipora. Phone No: 9622516588

.… Applicants

By Advocate : Mr. Showkat Ali

VERSUS

1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, through Financial Commissioner (Additional Chief Secretary) to the Government, Public Works (R&&B) Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu- 190001.

2. Commissioner / Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu-190001.

3. Financial Commissioner to the Government, Finance Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu- 190001.

gmail.com

SHUBHAM SHARMA

4. Chief Engineer, Public Works (R&B) Department, Kashmir, Srinagar-190001 ....Respondents

By Advocate :-Mr. Syed Musaib, DAG

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

01. Heard on M.A./1458/2026 seeking CoD. The cause of action for the applicants to seek retrospective regularization, prima facie, arose from Government Order No. 351 PW (R&B) of 2026 dated 12.10.2026, when the respondents granted retrospective regularization to 47 Junior Engineers, including 11 officials belonging to the same batch as the applicants. Accordingly, reckoned from the said date i.e. 12.10.2026, present petition, prima facie appears to be within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the M.A. 1458/2026 is disposed of.

02. The case of the Applicants, as projected in the O.A., is that both Applicants, Junior Engineers (Civil), were engaged on a contractual basis during 2003–2004 under the same State policy and were regularized in 2012 under Section 5 of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, only on a prospective basis.

03. It is further stated in O.A. that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 04.12.2024 (with the review petition having been dismissed on gmail.com

SHUBHAM SHARMA

03.02.2026), upheld the interpretation of the Hon’ble High Court that regularization under Section 5 is due upon completion of seven years of service. Subsequently, vide Government Order No. 351-PW(R&B) of dated 12.10.2026, the respondents granted retrospective regularization to 47 Junior Engineers, including at least eleven batch- mates of the Applicants, who had been regularized under the very same Government Order of 2012 in which applicant No. 1 also figures. However, despite being identically placed, the applicants have been left out of the said benefit.

04. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have themselves adopted the said yardstick. The Finance Department's advice dated 23.04.2026 and 21.09.2026, as well as Government Order No. 351 itself, fix the effective date as the date of completion of seven years of contractual service. The Chief Minister's approval dated 11.10.2026 also speaks of implementation in respect of "eligible employees". Having accepted the aforesaid principle, the respondents cannot apply one effective date to a batch-mate and a different date to the applicants.

05. He further contends that the applicants are not fence-sitters, as the wrong complained of is continuing in nature. The issue remained sub judice, with the respondents contesting the same, until the dismissal of the Review Petition on 03.02.2026. The respondents implemented the judgment only on 12.10.2026, and Government Order No. 351 itself is expressly made gmail.com

SHUBHAM SHARMA

"subject to the outcome of any writ petition or other proceeding pending before any competent court of law". The applicants have approached this Tribunal within days thereafter. Seniority, pay fixation and pension are continuing wrongs, and a claim seeking correction thereof is not defeated by delay, though arrears may be regulated, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 and M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628. The exception carved out for persons who acquiesced, as noticed in the case titled State of U.P. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, in Civil Appeal No. 9849/2014 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 17.10.2014, does not apply to a declaration of statutory law in rem.

06. Learned counsel further submits both, regularisation orders stipulate that seniority shall be governed by the 2010 Act. Once the seniority of eleven batch-mates covered under Government Order No. 242 is antedated pursuant to Government Order No. 351, the applicants, who were regularised along with or at the same time as the said batch-mates, are pushed below persons having no superior claim to seniority. The Finance Department itself had flagged that differential dates "will lead to seniority-related issues". This directly affects the applicants' prospects of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. He further states that the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressly noted that the delay was adversely affecting the pensionary benefits of the concerned employees and directed gmail.com

SHUBHAM SHARMA

that the exercise be completed within three months. Excluding the applicants from the benefit of the said judgment and compelling them to initiate fresh litigation on an issue that already stands settled, is arbitrary and contrary to the obligations of the respondents as a model employer. Hence this O.A.

07. Through the medium of the instant petition the petitioners seek for the following reliefs-

a) Direct the Respondents to extend to the Applicants the same treatment as granted by Government Order No. 351-PW(R&B) of 2026 dated 12.10.2026, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 04.12.2024 in State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Mohammad Syed Parrey & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 13798 of 2024 arising out of SLP (C) No. 8720 of 2021);

b) Direct the Respondents to antedate the regularisation of Applicant No. 1 to 28.02.2011, and of Applicant No. 2 to 24.09.2010 (or in any case not later than 26.09.2010, as given to identically engaged batchmates), being the dates on which each completed seven years of continuous contractual service;

c) Quash Government Order No. 242-PW(R&B) of 2012 dated 24.05.2012 (as regards Applicant No. 1) and Government Order No. 531-PW(R&B) of 2012 dated 24.12.2012, to the limited extent they make the regularisation "prospective"; gmail.com

SHUBHAM SHARMA

d) Direct the Respondents to assign the Applicants their due seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineer (Civil) on the basis of the antedated dates, and to consider them for promotion from the date their juniors or batchmates were promoted;

e) Direct the Respondents to release all consequential benefits - notional and actual pay fixation, increments, arrears and pensionary benefits - within a time frame fixed by this Tribunal;

f) Pass any other order deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Applicants, with costs.

08. 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.

09. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Syed Musaib, DAG 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.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

gmail.com

SHUBHAM SHARMA

11. 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.

12. 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 detailed in the representation 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.

13. 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, if the applicants are similarly situated and their case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 04.12.2024 and there is no impediment.

14. 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.

15. It is clarified that this direction shall not be construed as an expression gmail.com

SHUBHAM SHARMA

of opinion on the merits of the applicants’ claims, which shall be decided independently by the competent authority in accordance with law.

16. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1204/2026 is disposed of. M.A./1459/2026 seeking joint application is also allowed. No order as to costs.

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

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

Shubhamsharma gmail.com

SHUBHAM SHARMA