Ad Hoc Employees are Entitled to Retrospective Regularization Benefits Under Applicable Policy Despite Subsequent Prospective Regularization.

The applicant, a member of the Scheduled Tribe category, was engaged as an Orderly at the Tehsil Information Centre, Budhal, on July 29, 1993, on an ad hoc/month-to-month basis

Although another candidate (Ram Parkash) was selected for the post, he failed to join, allowing the applicant to continue service uninterruptedly

In 1998, the applicant was "confirmed" in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 until final selection

Having completed seven years of service by July 2000, he sought regularization under Government Order (G.O.) No. 1285-GAD of 2001

However, the respondents regularized him only prospectively from 2012 under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010

Following a High Court direction in a previous writ (SWP No. 2547/2013) to reconsider his claim, the respondents issued the impugned Order No. INF-152/2018 on August 31, 2018, rejecting retrospective regularization on the grounds that the applicant was not an "ad hoc" employee

1. Whether the applicant's engagement qualifies as "ad hoc" for the purpose of seeking benefits under Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001.

2. Whether the prospective regularization under the Act of 2010 precludes the applicant from claiming retrospective benefits under an earlier government policy.

Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 mandates the regularization of ad hoc appointees in non-gazetted posts (appointed between 1988 and 2001) after seven years of continuous service.

J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, regarding prospective regularization.

The doctrine of finality of judgments, noting that the High Court’s prior direction to "consider" the case under a specific policy must be executed meaningfully and not as an empty formality.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention that the applicant was not an ad hoc employee, noting that he worked against a vacant post, was placed in a regular pay scale, and was officially "confirmed" in that scale as early as 1998.

The Tribunal observed that the respondents’ rejection order adopted a "hyper-technical view" that ignored their own records and the factual report of the District Information Officer recommending regularization.

It was reasoned that since the applicant completed seven years of service by July 2000, his right to be considered under the 2001 Policy ripened long before the 2010 Act was enacted.

The Tribunal emphasized that a subsequent prospective regularization under a new law (the 2010 Act) does not automatically extinguish vested claims under a prior applicable policy.

The Tribunal quashed the impugned rejection order and directed the respondents to grant the applicant notional pay fixation, seniority, and consequential service/pensionary benefits, with actual monetary arrears restricted to the difference in pay after adjustment of wages already paid, to be completed within three months.