Authorities must consider employees’ claims under cited precedents, subject to similarity and applicable rules.

The applicants were appointed as Medical Assistants (now Pharmacists) in 2017 following litigation arising from a 1991 recruitment process.

Their appointment orders applied SRO 400 of 2009, the New Pension Scheme.

They sought retrospective appointment from 1992, or notional retrospective effect, and coverage under the Old Pension Scheme, relying on the original advertisement and subsequent judicial proceedings.

Before the Tribunal, counsel sought deletion of applicants 1 and 4 because they had filed separate petitions; their names were deleted, and the order was confined to applicants 2, 3 and 5.

The remaining applicants asked that their claims be considered in light of State of J&K v. Ramesh Kumar Tickoo and U.T. of J&K v. Shabir Ahmad Pir; the respondents did not object to disposal on that basis.

1. Whether the respondents should consider the remaining applicants’ claims in light of the judgments in State of J&K v. Ramesh Kumar Tickoo and U.T. of J&K v. Shabir Ahmad Pir, if those judgments apply to applicants who are similarly situated.

2. Whether the Tribunal should determine the applicants’ entitlement to retrospective appointment or Old Pension Scheme benefits on the merits.

The Tribunal relied on State of J&K v. Ramesh Kumar Tickoo & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8640 of 2014, and U.T. of J&K & Anr. v. Shabir Ahmad Pir & Ors., CM No. 2962/2023 in LPA No. 89/2023, as authorities that the competent authority must consider if applicable to the applicants’ case.

It directed that consideration remain subject to applicable rules and regulations and the absence of any other legal impediment.

The Tribunal did not state or apply a substantive rule resolving entitlement to retrospective appointment or pension benefits; it expressly left all questions of fact and law open.

The applicants relied on the two judgments as covering their claims, and the respondents raised no objection to disposal on that basis.

The Tribunal therefore did not decide whether the applicants were entitled to retrospective appointment or Old Pension Scheme coverage. Instead, it made consideration of their claims conditional on the competent authority finding that they were similarly situated to the parties in the cited judgments and that those judgments applied, subject to governing rules and any legal impediment.

The Tribunal expressed no view on the merits, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.