Authorities must consider regularization and pension claims by reasoned order, without prejudging their merits.

The applicants stated that they had been appointed as Teachers on a contractual basis under the Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003, and their services were subsequently regularized by Government Order No. 577-Edu of 2015.

They contended that their initial appointments followed selection by District Selection Committees and that delay in regularization was attributable to the respondents.

They sought regularization from their initial selection and appointment, consequential seniority and service benefits, including pensionary benefits under the rules preceding SRO-400 of 24 December 2009; alternatively, they sought regularization from the date the statutory period under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, expired.

After the applicants limited their request to consideration of these claims as a representation, the respondents did not oppose disposal with appropriate directions, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

Whether the Original Application should be disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the applicants’ claims as a representation.

Whether the Tribunal should determine the applicants’ entitlement to retrospective regularization, seniority and consequential pensionary or service benefits at this stage.

The applicants relied on Section 10(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, concerning the referral and scrutiny of eligible ad hoc, contractual and consolidated appointees’ cases.

The Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003, and the Jammu and Kashmir Education (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008.

They also relied on amendments to the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Rules introduced by SRO-400 dated 24 December 2009, concerning the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme for employees appointed or brought onto the regular establishment on or after 1 January 2010.

They also relied on Shahid Ahmad Pathan & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., SWP No. 2691/2017, the judgment in SWP No. 2147/2017 and connected matters, and the Full Bench judgment in UT of J&K v. Neeru Pandita, dated 11 August 2026.

The Tribunal did not determine the interpretation or application of these authorities; it directed consideration of the claims in accordance with applicable law and, as to Neeru Pandita, subject to the applicants being similarly situated and covered by that judgment.

The applicants sought disposal on the basis that their claims be considered administratively, and the respondents accepted disposal with appropriate directions without conceding the merits.

In view of that limited request, the Tribunal concluded that keeping the application pending would serve no useful purpose.

It therefore directed the respondents to consider the claims, including the applicants’ reliance on Neeru Pandita, while expressly leaving eligibility, entitlement, legal impediments and all factual and legal questions for the competent authority to determine.

It directed the respondents to treat it as a representation and pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order on the applicants’ claims within twelve weeks from service of a certified copy of the order, and to communicate that decision to the applicants.

No order as to costs was made.