Authorities must decide pay-parity and regularisation claims by a reasoned order within eight weeks.

The applicant was engaged as a Driver in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Shopian, against an available vacancy on a temporary and consolidated basis with effect from 1 January 2012, at a remuneration of ₹7,000 per month.

His engagement order stated that it would not confer any right to regular appointment and was terminable without notice.

The applicant claimed that he performed duties identical to those performed by two other similarly engaged Drivers, Farooq Ahmad Sodagar and Abdul Rashid Sheikh, who were granted the regular pay band and grade pay applicable to the post of Driver, while he continued to receive consolidated remuneration.

He challenged the discriminatory treatment before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in SWP No. 2459/2013.

The High Court quashed the respondents’ rejection order dated 19 March 2014 and directed payment of salary to the applicant at par with the similarly situated temporary Drivers from the date of his appointment, along with consequential arrears and interest, by judgment dated 16 April 2015.

Alleging non-compliance, the applicant filed SWP No. 487/2017 seeking implementation of the judgment.

The High Court directed the respondents to furnish a compliance report on 17 March 2017.

The matter was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal on 14 December 2020.

The applicant later filed the present O.A. seeking implementation of the 2015 judgment, release of consequential monetary benefits, consideration of his claim for regularization, and consideration of his legal notice dated 27 December 2025.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to implement the High Court judgment dated 16 April 2015 granting the applicant pay parity with similarly situated temporary Drivers, together with consequential monetary benefits.

2. Whether the applicant’s claim for regularization as a Driver should be considered in light of his alleged continuous service and the treatment accorded to similarly situated employees.

3. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s claim by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The applicant’s allegations of unequal treatment were founded on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which require equality before law and equality of opportunity in public employment.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative authority must consider an employee’s claim in accordance with law, relevant service rules, eligibility, and entitlement, and must communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal also recognised that regularization is not automatic merely because an employee has rendered long service; it may be granted only where the employee is similarly situated to persons who have received the benefit and no legal impediment exists.

The Tribunal noted the applicant’s claim that the High Court had already directed pay parity from the date of his appointment and that the respondents had allegedly failed to implement that direction.

However, instead of determining the merits of the monetary and regularization claims, the Tribunal directed the respondents to treat the O.A. itself as a representation.

The respondents were required to examine the applicant’s eligibility and entitlement, the effect of the 16 April 2015 judgment, and his alleged similarity with other employees.

In relation to regularization, the Tribunal made the relief conditional upon the applicant being similarly situated to persons who had received regularization and there being no legal impediment.

Thus, the Tribunal preserved the applicant’s claims for administrative determination without expressing a final opinion on their merits.

The respondents were directed to treat the O.A. as a representation and decide the applicant’s case in accordance with law, keeping in view the contents of the O.A., his eligibility, and his entitlements.

They were further directed to consider regularization if the applicant was similarly situated to persons granted that benefit and no legal impediment existed.

A reasoned and speaking order was required to be passed within eight weeks from service of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.