Wahida Begum vs EDUCATION on 5 November 2026

1. Wahida Begum, Aged about 41 years W/o Raza Amar Alahi R/o Badwan Wanpora district Bandipora PINCODE 193503, Ph. 9797735569 on behalf of all.

2. Abdul Latif Lone, Aged about 49 years, S/o Mohd Sydullah Lone R/o Badwan Wanpora Gurez District Bandipora PINCODE 193503

3. Muzaffar Ahmad Mir, aged about 46 Years S/o Ghulam Qadir Mir R/o Markoot Bandipora PINCODE 193503

4. Mohammad Amin Bhat, aged about 49 Years S/o AB Aziz Bhat R/o Badwan Wanpora, Bandipora PINCODE 193503

5. Tariq Ahmad Lone, aged about 49 Years S/o Mohd Sabír Lone R/o Badwan Wanpora Gurez District Bandipora PINCODE 193503

6. Mohd Mustafa Mir, aged about 41 Years S/o Mohd Saboor Mir R/o Khandiyal District Bandipora PINCODE 193503.

7. Samina Gaffar, aged 44 years D/o Ab. Gaffar Lone R/oShahpora district Bandipora Pin code 193503

8. Mohmad Suliman Lone, aged 46 S/o Abdul Gaffar Lone R/o Badwan Wanpora District Bandipora Pin code 193503

9. Jafar Ahamd Ahanger, aged 43 years S/o Gh Mohi Din Ahanger R/o Gulshanpora Gurez District Bandipora. Pin code 193503 .… Applicants

By Advocate : Mr. Showkat A Dar

SHUBHAM SHARMA

VERSUS

1. U.T of Jammu & Kashmir, Through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt, School Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. Pin Code - 190001

2. Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., General Administration Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. Pin Code -190001

3. Director, School Education Kashmir, Srinagar. Pin Code - 190001

4. Chief Education Officer, Bandipora, Pin Code - 193502

5. Chief Education Officer, Baramulla Pin code:- 193101 ....Respondents

By Advocate :- Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG.

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

01. Hon’ble Member (J) has joined the proceedings through virtual mode.

02. Heard on M.A.1455/2026. The nine applicants claim to have a common cause of action against the respondents and seek similar relief on the basis of common facts and questions of law. To avoid multiplicity of litigation, they have accordingly joined together in filing the present petition. Accordingly, the M.A. is allowed.

SHUBHAM SHARMA

03. The applicants state that they were initially appointed as Teachers on a contractual basis in the Education Department under SRO 255 of 2003 dated 05.08.2003, and their service conditions were governed by the applicable rules. Their initial appointments, dates of engagement and subsequent regularization orders issued in the year 2017 have been detailed in a tabulated statement forming part of the petition. According to the applicants, the said statement reflects the period of service rendered by each of them prior to regularization, which they seek to have counted towards their pensionary benefits in accordance with law. Their grievance is that, despite having rendered continuous service and being eligible for regularization under the applicable statutory framework, their services were regularized only prospectively in 2017, thereby depriving them of the benefit of their past service.

04. It is contended that under Section 10 (2) of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, the departmental authorities were required to refer the cases of eligible ad hoc, contractual and consolidated appointees for consideration of regularization under Section 5 of the Act, within the prescribed period of sixty days reckoned from 28.04.2010. The applicants maintain that the delay in processing their cases was attributable entirely to administrative

SHUBHAM SHARMA

inaction and procedural lapses on the part of the respondents, and that they cannot be made to suffer the consequences thereof.

05. It is further contended that, notwithstanding the amendments introduced through SRO No. 400 and the applicable provisions of the Recruitment Rules, the respondents issued regularization orders prospectively in 2017, without extending the corresponding benefit of the continuous service rendered by the applicants prior thereto. According to them, such action has adversely affected their entitlement to pensionary benefits and is contrary to the statutory scheme governing their regularization.

06. The applicants further contend that their initial appointments were neither by way of backdoor entry nor pursuant to any purely temporary or stopgap arrangement. Rather, they claim to have been selected through a duly constituted and prescribed selection process conducted by the District Selection Committee under Rule 6 of J&K Contractual Appointment the Rules of 2003 (SRO 255), against clear sanctioned vacancies, following consideration of their eligibility and suitability.

07. The applicants further contend that regularization under the statutory framework does not amount to a fresh appointment within the meaning of the applicable Recruitment Rules or SRO 400 dated 24.12.2009. They submit that having entered

SHUBHAM SHARMA

government service in October–November 2006, much prior to the cut-off date of 01.01.2010 prescribed under SRO 400, the restrictive provisions thereof cannot be applied to their case so as to deprive them of the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled as M.K. Shanmugam & Another v. Union of India & Another.

08. It is further submitted that the applicants had fulfilled the requisite eligibility conditions and formalities prescribed under Section 5 of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, and had rendered continuous service without any break.

09. According to them, upon enactment of the said legislation, they had a legitimate expectation that their cases would be processed within the prescribed statutory period and that the consequential service benefits would be determined with reference to the date on which they became eligible, rather than from a subsequent prospective date.

10. The applicants claim that their cases are covered by the principles laid down in the judgment dated 11.07.2018 and the consequential order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 2691/2017 titled Shahid Ahmad Pathan & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors. They assert that they are similarly situated to the

SHUBHAM SHARMA

persons whose claims were directed to be considered in the said proceedings and, therefore, seek similar consideration of their claims in accordance with the applicable rules and judicial pronouncements.

11. It is also stated that the applicants submitted a detailed representation dated 18.06.2026 before the respondents, seeking consideration of their claim for regularization from the respective dates of initial contractual engagement or, in the alternative, from the dates of completion of the prescribed qualifying service, along with consequential benefits relating to seniority, pay fixation and pensionary benefits. However, according to them, the said representation has not been considered till date.

12. The applicants further rely upon the judgment dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 13798/2024, titled UT of J&K and Others v. Mohammad Syed Parrey & Others, whereby the appeals preferred by the Government were dismissed and the entitlement of the concerned contractual appointees to have their regularization reckoned from the date of completion of seven years of continuous service was upheld. They also refer to the dismissal of the review petition filed by the Union Territory on 03.02.2026.

SHUBHAM SHARMA

13. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and submissions, the applicants seek a direction to the respondents to consider and decide their claim in the light of the aforesaid judgments and applicable statutory provisions, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period, and to extend such consequential benefits as may be found admissible to them in accordance with law.

14. In the aforesaid backdrop, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by way of the present O.A., seeking the following reliefs/directions against the respondents-:

a) Issue writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to treat the applicants regularized to the post of Teachers from the day and date, they were selected and appointed as contractual for the first time by facing the process of selection. Accordingly, the Respondents be also directed to fix the seniority of the applicants. In consequence thereto, it be declared that the applicants are entitled to the pensionary benefits as per the Rules governing the field which subsisted and were in vogue prior to the amendment of Article 167 and allied Articles by issuance of SRO 400 dated 24,12.2009. Accordingly, the Respondents be directed to accord pensionary benefits to the applicants as and when such an occasion arises.

b) In the alternative the Respondents be directed to give effect of regularization not from the day applicants were regularized but from the day the period for regularization

SHUBHAM SHARMA

was completed in pursuance of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act of 2010 with all consequential benefits.

c) 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.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant argued the matter at length and submitted that the applicants 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.

16. Mr. Satinder Singh, learned AAG, appearing on advance notice, submits that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.

17. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending, particularly in view of the limited prayer now made on behalf of the applicants.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy or the rival claims of the parties, the present Original

SHUBHAM SHARMA

Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation and accord due consideration to the applicants’ claims for grant of regularization from the date of their initial selection and appointment, fixation of their seniority and consequential pensionary/service benefits under the rules applicable prior to SRO-400 dated 24.12.2009, or, in the alternative, for giving effect to their regularization from the date on which the statutory period prescribed under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 stood completed, together with consequential benefits, along with the assertions and grounds raised in the Original Application and the documents annexed thereto, and in the light judgments above- referred as well as Government Order No. 435-JK (Edu) of 2026 dated 14.10.2026, subject to the applicants being found similarly situated and squarely covered by the said judgment, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and the law governing the field, subject to the applicants’ eligibility and entitlement and there being no legal impediment thereto.

19. The respondents shall pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within a period of ten (10) weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon them and communicate a copy of the order so passed to the applicants.

SHUBHAM SHARMA

20. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicants' claims, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority while passing the aforesaid order.

21. With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application No.

stands disposed of. Consequently, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

22. No order as to costs.

23. Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room after due compliance.

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

Shubham sharma

SHUBHAM SHARMA