Authorities must treat the regularisation claim as a representation and decide it by a reasoned order within four weeks.

The applicant sought regularization under the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provision) Act, 2010, effective from 29 April 2010, with consequential service and monetary benefits.

He relied on the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court’s judgment dated 8 August 2025 in U.T. of J&K & Ors. v. Kanta Devi, U.T. of J&K & Ors. v. Bittu and U.T. of J&K & Ors. v. Kulvinder, and the stated affirmance of those judgments by the Supreme Court in the respective SLPs.

At the hearing, his counsel submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if the Original Application were treated as a representation and decided in light of those judgments.

Whether the Original Application should be treated as the applicant’s representation and considered in light of the cited judgments.

Whether the Tribunal should itself grant the claimed regularization and consequential benefits at this stage.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The applicant invoked the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provision) Act, 2010 and the cited High Court judgments, stated to have been affirmed by the Supreme Court, in support of his regularization claim.

The Tribunal did not set out or independently apply a substantive rule governing eligibility for regularization; it disposed of the matter on the limited relief requested at the hearing.

In view of the applicant’s limited submission, the Tribunal did not determine whether he was legally entitled to regularization or consequential benefits.

Instead, it directed the respondents to treat the Original Application as a formal representation and decide it in light of the cited judgments.

The respondents were required to issue a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

No order as to costs was made.