Facts
The seven applicants were appointed as drivers in the Health and Medical Education Department of Jammu Kashmir following Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2008.
Source reference: p. 3Although the notification preceded the issuance of SRO 400 of 2009 (which introduced the New Pension Scheme for employees joining after January 1, 2010), the applicants were denied the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).
Source reference: p. 3-4The applicants sought to have their appointment dates preponed or their service governed by the 2008 notification terms to qualify for OPS.
Source reference: p. 4The respondents contested the application on grounds of it being time-barred and noted that certain precedent judgments relied upon by the applicants had been stayed.
Source reference: p. 7Issues
1. Whether the applicants, appointed pursuant to a 2008 notification but joined/regularized after 01.01.2010, are entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.
Source reference: p. 3-42. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation/delay and laches.
Source reference: p. 73. Whether the right to seek pension constitutes a continuing cause of action.
Source reference: p. 8Law Applied
SRO 400 of 2009, which amended Article 167 of the J Civil Services Regulations (J) to implement a New Pension Scheme for employees brought on regular establishment on or after 01.01.2010.
Source reference: p. 4-5Procedural principle that pension claims constitute a "continuing cause of action".
Source reference: p. 8Judicial precedents including UT of J v. Rouoof Ahmad Zargar and the Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of J and Ladakh in Aijaz Ahmad Parray v. UT of J (WP(C) No. 1323/2025).
Source reference: p. 8-10Reasoning
The Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the pension claim but focused on the applicants' request for a directed administrative review in light of settled law.
Source reference: no citationThe applicants argued that since their recruitment process started in 2008, the subsequent SRO 400 of 2009 should not retroactively disadvantage them.
Source reference: p. 5The respondents argued that the applicants had "slept over their rights".
Source reference: p. 7However, citing Rouoof Ahmad Zargar, the applicants maintained that pensionary rights are ongoing and not strictly limited by time.
Source reference: p. 8The Tribunal noted the existence of conflicting orders—specifically that some favorable judgments (Mohammad Shafi Dar) were stayed, while other Division Bench judgments (Aijaz Ahmad Parray) were now relevant.
Source reference: p. 7-8Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the most appropriate course was to treat the O.A. as a representation for the executive to decide based on the specific legal principles established in the cited High Court rulings.
Source reference: p. 9Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. without a final ruling on the merits.
It directed the respondents to treat the O.A. as a formal representation and "accord due consideration" to the applicants' claims in light of the judgment in UT of J v. Rouoof Ahmad Zargar and Aijaz Ahmad Parray v. UT of J
Source reference: p. 9-10The respondents were ordered to pass a speaking and reasoned order within eight weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.
Source reference: p. 10No costs were awarded.
Source reference: p. 10Original Court PDF
GHULAM MOHAMMAD LONEvsHEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in