Authorities directed to consider notional seniority claims and pass reasoned orders within eight weeks.

The applicants were selected pursuant to J&K Services Selection Board Advertisement Notification No. 05 of 1991 dated 8 July 1991 for the post of Medical Assistant, subsequently redesignated as Junior Pharmacist.

Although the advertised posts were increased from 65 to 200 and 200 candidates were recommended for appointment on 23 April 1992, appointments were not issued uniformly, leading to prolonged litigation.

The applicants, who were selected candidates, later obtained relief in SWP No. 872/2008 and were appointed as Junior Pharmacists only in 2016–2017 under SRO-400 of 2009.

After filing a representation dated 27 July 2026, the applicants approached the Tribunal.

During hearing, however, they restricted their prayer to a direction requiring the respondents to consider the Original Application as a representation and decide their claim in accordance with the aforesaid judgments.

Whether the applicants’ claim for notional seniority and consequential service, pensionary and retiral benefits required consideration on the analogy of the judgments in SWP No. 750/2010 and LPA No. 89/2023?

Whether the Original Application should be disposed of by directing the respondents to treat it as a representation and pass a reasoned decision within a stipulated period, without the Tribunal adjudicating the merits?

The Tribunal applied the principle that similarly situated employees should receive equal treatment in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, subject to eligibility, entitlement, applicable service rules and the absence of any legal impediment.

It relied upon the judgment dated 6 December 2018 in Shabir Ahmad Pir & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., as modified by the Division Bench in LPA No. 89/2023 on 1 September 2025, under which candidates from the same selection process were to receive appropriate seniority and consequential service, pensionary and retirement benefits, excluding back wages and without disturbing the seniority of earlier protected appointees.

The Tribunal further applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority must consider a representation and issue a detailed, reasoned and speaking order.

The applicants asserted that they belonged to the same 1991–92 selection process as the candidates who had obtained relief in the Shabir Ahmad Pir litigation and that the delay in their appointments was attributable to the respondents.

Since the applicants limited their request to consideration of their claim, the Tribunal found that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the Original Application pending.

It therefore did not determine whether the applicants were in fact identically situated or legally entitled to retrospective seniority.

Instead, it directed the respondents to examine that question in light of the cited judgments, the applicants’ documents, applicable rules and any legal impediment.

The Tribunal expressly left all questions of fact and law open for determination by the competent authority.

The respondents were directed to treat the Original Application as a representation, consider the applicants’ claims for notional seniority and consequential benefits in light of the judgments dated 6 December 2018 and 1 September 2025, and determine whether the applicants were similarly situated and entitled to equivalent relief under the applicable law.

A detailed, reasoned and speaking order was to be passed within eight weeks from service of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order and communicated to the applicants forthwith.

The pending miscellaneous application(s) were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.