Authorities must consider the regularisation claim and pass a reasoned order without prejudging its merits.

The applicant stated that he had worked as a Chowkidar on a leave-arrangement vacancy from 4 March 1993, and that his services were regularized under the J&K Civil Service (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, by Government Order dated 2 August 2012.

He sought retrospective regularization and consequential benefits, relying on the treatment given to Suheela Aziz and Manzoor Ahmad Dar, and alleged that the respondents had not considered his representation dated 24 December 2025.

After hearing, the applicant’s counsel stated that the applicant would be satisfied if the O.A. and supporting material were treated as a comprehensive representation and decided; the respondents did not object to disposal on that basis, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

Whether the O.A., together with its annexures and the applicant’s earlier representations, should be treated as a comprehensive representation for consideration by the respondents.

Whether the Tribunal should determine the applicant’s entitlement to retrospective regularization and consequential benefits on the merits.

The applicant relied on the J&K Civil Service (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in support of his claim to regularization and equal treatment.

Instead, it directed the respondents to consider the matter under the applicable statutory provisions, rules, and governing legal framework, subject to the applicant’s eligibility and entitlement and the absence of any legal impediment.

The Tribunal confined its decision to the limited relief the applicant accepted during the hearing.

Because the applicant agreed to have the O.A. treated as a comprehensive representation, and the respondents had no objection to appropriate directions, the Tribunal did not assess whether the comparator employees were similarly situated or whether retrospective regularization was legally due.

It therefore left the merits to the respondents’ reasoned consideration under the applicable law.

It directed the respondents to treat the O.A., its annexures, and any earlier representations as a comprehensive representation, and to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks after service of a certified copy of the order and a copy of the O.A., subject to eligibility, entitlement under law, and the absence of a legal impediment.