Competent authority must decide employees’ repatriation claims by a reasoned order within six weeks.

The 18 applicants are General Line Teachers, domiciled in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, who were appointed against district-cadre posts in Leh/Kargil before the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.

They are presently serving in various schools in the Union Territory of Ladakh.

The applicants sought their repatriation to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, relying principally on Government Order No. 1212-JK(GAD) of 2021 dated 15 November 2021, issued pursuant to Section 89(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, and Government Order No. 675-JK(GAD) of 2025 dated 6 June 2025.

The applicants contended that their representations/options for repatriation had not been acted upon and approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking implementation of the relevant Government orders, consideration of their adjustment in Jammu and Kashmir, and repatriation from Ladakh.

During the hearing, the respondents’ learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel stated that the applicants would be repatriated to Jammu and Kashmir in a phased manner, subject to the applicable policy and administrative requirements.

Whether the applicants’ grievance regarding repatriation from the Union Territory of Ladakh to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir was required to be considered by the competent authority under the applicable Government orders, rules, guidelines and policy.

Whether the Tribunal should grant a direct order for repatriation and implementation of the applicants’ claimed entitlements, or instead require the competent authority to take a reasoned decision on their representation.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning applications by aggrieved public servants.

It considered Section 89(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, together with Government Order No. 1212-JK(GAD) of 2021 dated 15 November 2021 and Government Order No. 675-JK(GAD) of 2025 dated 6 June 2025, as the relevant administrative and policy framework governing the possible repatriation or adjustment of employees appointed before reorganisation.

The Tribunal applied the principle that where an employee’s claim depends upon the examination of applicable rules, Government orders, policy and administrative requirements, the competent authority must consider the claim and pass a reasoned and speaking order; the Tribunal should not determine the merits in the first instance where the matter has not been administratively decided.

The applicants asserted an entitlement to repatriation based on their domicile, pre-reorganisation appointments and the cited Government orders.

However, the Tribunal did not adjudicate whether those facts legally entitled them to repatriation or adjustment in Jammu and Kashmir.

The respondents’ statement that repatriation would be undertaken in a phased manner, subject to the applicable policy and administrative requirements, made it unnecessary to retain the application for further adjudication.

Accordingly, instead of issuing a mandamus directing immediate repatriation or declaring the applicants entitled to the reliefs claimed, the Tribunal treated the Original Application as a representation and directed the competent authority to examine it, along with the annexed documents and relevant Government orders and guidelines, independently and in accordance with law.

The Tribunal expressly preserved the merits of the claim for determination by the competent authority.

The Original Application was directed to be treated as a representation.

The competent authority was required to consider the applicants’ grievance and the relevant material and pass an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal also took note of the respondents’ statement regarding phased repatriation, while granting no direct order of immediate repatriation or adjustment.

The application was disposed of with no order as to costs, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.