Administrative delay cannot defeat a pending regularisation claim solely because the employee died before a decision.

Late Shri Rameshwar Dayal was appointed as an ad-hoc Driver in November 1996 and his engagement was extended from time to time.

He and similarly placed employees had earlier approached the High Court; during subsequent contempt proceedings, the authorities stated that their cases had been recommended for regularisation.

After the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 was enacted, Dayal’s case was recommended at several administrative levels and, in 2017, by the Empowered Committee.

He died on 12 January 2015 before a final regularisation decision was made.

The General Administration Department declined his case, reasoning that regularisation under Section 5(ii) of the Act operated prospectively and that he had died before an order was issued.

His widow sought regularisation and consequential benefits; the application was transferred from the High Court and registered before the Tribunal.

Whether Dayal’s claim for regularisation could be rejected solely because he died before the authorities issued a formal order, where his case had remained under consideration during his lifetime.

Whether the Tribunal should itself grant regularisation or direct the competent authority to reconsider his eligibility by reference to the position during his lifetime.

The Tribunal considered the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, particularly Section 5(ii), which the General Administration Department understood to require regularisation to operate prospectively.

It also applied the principle that long ad-hoc service does not, by itself, create an automatic right to regularisation, and that legal heirs ordinarily cannot claim a fresh right to regularisation after an employee’s death.

However, where an employee’s claim was pending during his lifetime and administrative delay prevented a timely decision, the claim should not be rejected solely because the employee died before the process concluded; eligibility must still be determined under the applicable rules and policy.

No judicial precedents were cited.

Dayal’s case was not initiated only after his death: it had been considered and recommended through several administrative levels, including by the Empowered Committee.

The Tribunal found that the claim was ultimately declined on the basis of his death and the prospective operation of regularisation, notwithstanding the prolonged pendency of the matter.

It considered that the consequences of administrative delay should not fall entirely on the employee or his family, while also recognising that it could not declare him automatically regularised without a competent assessment of eligibility.

The authorities were therefore required to assess his case as it stood during his lifetime, including his eligibility under the applicable provisions and the treatment of any genuinely comparable employees.

It directed the competent authority to reconsider his eligibility by reference to the circumstances and rules applicable during his lifetime, without treating his death as a ground for rejection.

If found entitled, he is to receive notional regularisation from the applicable date, with admissible consequential benefits paid to the applicant or legal heirs; any claim under SRO 43 is to be considered separately.

A reasoned order must be issued within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.