MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL BHAT vs THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD AND ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 08.10.2026
Pronounced on: 23.10.2026
Uploaded on: 23.10.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
SWP No.588/2017
MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL BHAT
...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)
Through: - Mr. S. A. Makroo, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Rahil Noor, Advocate.
Vs.
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
…RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Ms. Muzamil Jabeen, Advocate.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1)
The petitioner came to be engaged as Part-Time
Sweeper with the respondents on 17.04.1989 along with one
Mr. Mohammad Jamal Dar. The respondents issued a
communication dated 07.02.1992 read with communication
dated 27.02.1992, wherein a decision was taken regarding
regularization of Part-Time Sweepers and also granting them
age relaxation. The respondents regularized the service of
Mohammad Jamal Dar in the year 1992, but the petitioner
was not regularized, which compelled him to approach this
Court through the medium of SWP No.891/2004, which was
SWP No.588/2017 Page 1 of 8

disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2005.
Thereafter, the petitioner was regularized as Full-Time
Sweeper vide order dated 28.02.2013 and was finally
confirmed against the post of Sub-Staff (other category -
Full-Time Sweeper) vide order dated 04.12.2013. The
confirmation of the petitioner's service was given prospective
effect with effect from 25.09.2013.
2) The petitioner submitted a representation to the
respondents seeking the benefit of his 24 years of service and
requesting that his case be brought under the Old Pension
Scheme. A copy of the representation dated 07.04.2016 has
been placed on record. As the petitioner's grievance was not
redressed, he served a legal notice upon the respondents
calling upon them to bring his case under the Old Pension
Scheme and to count his 24 years of service for seniority,
promotion, pension, and monetary benefits, on the analogy
of Mohammad Jamal Dar .
3) The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ
petition is that his services ought to have been regularized
with effect from the year 1995, at par with Mohammad Jamal
Dar , and that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and
discriminatorily against him. Consequently, the petitioner
prays for quashing Order dated 04.12.2013 to the extent it
SWP No.588/2017 Page 2 of 8

grants prospective confirmation to his services with effect
from 25.09.2013, and seeks a direction upon the
respondents to regularize his services as Sub-Staff
retrospectively from 1995, on the analogy of Mohammad
Jamal Dar .
4) In their reply, the respondents state that during the
pendency of SWP No. 891/2004, the petitioner filed another
writ petition, SWP No. 1169/2005. Vide order dated
05.02.2013 passed in the latter petition, the Court directed
the respondents to consider his representation dated
26.03.2012. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner’s
representation was acted upon, and he was adjusted into
permanent employment as a Full-Time Sweeper based on his
seniority and management policy. The petitioner accepted
the terms and conditions of his appointment by signing on
21.03.2013 and subsequently joined duty in the office of the
Divisional Manager on 25.03.2013. The respondents further
state that although the petitioner had appeared for an
interview in 1996, he failed to qualify, leaving no scope for
his regular appointment at that stage. His case was
subsequently reconsidered in light of his seniority and
length of service as a Part-Time Sweeper. Having accepted
his regular appointment as a Full-Time Sweeper, it is not
SWP No.588/2017 Page 3 of 8

open to the petitioner to seek regularization retrospectively
from the date of his initial part-time engagement.
Furthermore, the petitioner cannot claim parity with
Mohammad Jamal Dar , who qualified through a selection
process/interview.
5) The respondents also filed a supplementary affidavit
stating that upon the filing of the petition by the petitioner
in 2004, this Court, vide order dated 11.03.2005, directed
that the petitioner’s representation for appointment as an
FTS be considered subject to rules and eligibility. Pursuant
to the order dated 11.03.2005, the petitioner’s case was duly
considered; however, due to the non-availability of a
vacancy, the appointment could not be made. The petitioner
was informed of this decision via communication/order
dated 09.06.2005.
6)
The petitioner subsequently challenged the said order
in SWP No. 1169/2005, seeking, inter alia , its quashing.
While the writ petition remained pending, the petitioner filed
MP No. 2715/2012 seeking appointment against a clear FTS
vacancy at the Residency Road Office in Srinagar. The Court
passed a consideration order. In compliance with the said
order, and upon consideration of the application alongside
the petitioner's representation, the petitioner was appointed
SWP No.588/2017 Page 4 of 8

as an FTS in 2013. Consequently, SWP No. 1169/2005 was
disposed of vide order dated 07.11.2016 in view of the
appointment already made. Therefore, it is no longer open to
the petitioner to re-agitate the same issue.
7) The petitioner has filed his response to the
supplementary affidavit stating therein that the contention
of the respondents about the availability of vacancies is
belied by office order of 1992, as the posts of sub-staff,
against which the petitioner was to be considered was
available and it is in this perspective, the service of
Mohammad Jamal Dar, the colleague of the petitioner, was
confirmed in July 1992. However, no such consideration was
accorded to the petitioner's case for his confirmation in
terms of the aforementioned office order.
8) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued
that the petitioner has been discriminated against by the
respondents, inasmuch as his colleague, Mohammad Jamal
Dar, was regularized while the petitioner was completely
overlooked. He further submitted that the petitioner is
entitled to the same benefits as those granted to Mohammad
Jamal Dar.
9) Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the
respondents that the order dated 07.02.1992 provided only
SWP No.588/2017 Page 5 of 8

for relaxation of age, while all other eligibility criteria were
still required to be met. She vehemently argued that the
petitioner has suppressed material facts from this Court, as
there is no mention that subsequent to filing SWP No.
891/2004, the petitioner filed another writ petition, SWP No.
1169/2005, which was disposed of in November 2016. In
that petition, the respondents had taken a specific stand
that no vacancy was available.
10) Heard and perused the record.
11) There is force in the contention raised by learned
counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner
has concealed the factum of filing of writ petition bearing
SWP No.1169/2005. The record of the said writ petition has
been tagged with the instant petition. In the said petition,
the petitioner had sought the following reliefs:
a) Mandamus commanding the respondents
to bring the petitioner to regular
establishment as Full-Time Sweeper from
Part Time Sweeper in pursuance of the
General Policy Decision taken by all the
subsidiaries including the respondent
company.

b) Mandamus commanding the respondents
to give the same benefit to the petitioner as
the other subsidiaries have given to their
employees similarly situated to the
petitioner.
c) Certiorari quashing the impugned office
order dated 09.06.2005.
SWP No.588/2017 Page 6 of 8

12) The said writ petition came to be disposed of in terms
of order dated 07.11.2016 with the direction to respondents
to re-consider the claim of the petitioner in the present
context based on the Board decision for regularization of
Part-Time Sweepers as Full-Time Sweepers.
13) It appears that it was not brought to the notice of the
Court either by the petitioner or by the respondents, that the
services of the petitioner were confirmed with effect from
25.09.2013 in terms of order dated 04.12.2013. Though in
paragraph (10) of the order dated 07.11.2016, it is stated
that the main reason for non-consideration of petitioner's
claim is non-availability of vacancy of sub-staff in Kashmir
Valley, but due to efflux of time, the respondents state that
there is a possibility of posts or new posts created becoming
vacant. Thus, it is evident that right from the very beginning,
it is the stand of the respondents that there was no vacancy
of sub-staff in the Kashmir Valley, and that is why the claim
of the petitioner was rejected in 2005.
14) Be that as it may, the petitioner stands regularized with
effect from September 2013, and he cannot be permitted to
file multiple petitions for the same relief. The respondents
have categorically stated that although the petitioner
appeared for an interview in 1996, he failed to qualify.
SWP No.588/2017 Page 7 of 8

Thereafter, no vacancy was available, a fact duly
communicated to him vide order/letter dated 09.06.2005,
which he subsequently challenged in SWP No. 1169/2005.
15) Not only was there a lack of vacancies, but the
petitioner also suppressed material fact regarding his
challenge to the order dated 09.06.2005. While the petition
deserves dismissal on this ground alone, this Court has
nonetheless examined the petitioner's case on merits as well.
16) The petitioner cannot claim parity with Mohammad
Jamal Dar, as the latter qualified the interview, whereas the
petitioner participated in the selection process in the year
1996 but failed to qualify.
17) In view of the above, this petition is found to be without
any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. Interim
direction, if any, shall cease to be in operation.
(Rajnesh Oswal)
Judge

Srinagar,
23.10.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”
Whether the judgment is reportable: No
SWP No.588/2017 Page 8 of 8