Facts
Five applicants (Sonam Chorol, Tsewang Nurboo, Phunchok Dolma, Spalzes Angmo, and Sonam Youdon) filed an Original Application seeking a formal speaking regularization order retrospectively under SRO-64 of 1994, along with retrospective release of service benefits.
Source reference: p.2-3The Miscellaneous Application No. 259/2026, filed by the applicants under Rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking permission to join and pursue the Original Application collectively, was allowed.
Source reference: p.2The applicants' counsel stated that they would be satisfied if the OA was treated as a representation to the respondents for considering their cases for regularization under SRO 64/1994 retrospectively and decided within a stipulated timeframe.
Source reference: p.3Issues
Whether the Miscellaneous Application seeking permission for applicants to join and pursue the Original Application collectively should be allowed.
Source reference: p.2Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicants' cases for regularization under SRO 64/1994 retrospectively and decide the same within a stipulated timeframe.
Source reference: p.3Law Applied
The court applied Rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which pertains to the collective joining and pursuing of an Original Application.
Source reference: p.2The court also referred to SRO 64 of 1994, the specific legal framework for regularization that the applicants were seeking to invoke.
Source reference: p.3Furthermore, the court considered the principles from the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh, at Jammu in the case titled “UT of J&K & Ors. Vs. Som Raj” (WP(C) No. 3402/2025), dated 11.12.2025, to guide the decision-making process for regularization.
Source reference: p.3Reasoning
The court, in considering the Miscellaneous Application, found it appropriate to allow the applicants to jointly pursue their Original Application, thereby granting the permission sought under Rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
Source reference: p.2Regarding the Original Application, the court noted the limited prayer made by the applicants' counsel, which was to have the OA treated as a representation.
Source reference: p.3Based on this, the court deemed it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the OA as a formal representation for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994, retrospectively from when the applicants became eligible.
Source reference: p.3The court further instructed the respondents to decide the matter in light of Annexure A1 and the precedent set by the "UT of J&K & Ors. Vs. Som Raj" judgment.
Source reference: p.3Holding
The Miscellaneous Application No. 259/2026 was allowed, granting permission to the applicants to join and proceed with the Original Application collectively.
The Original Application No. 261/2026 was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the OA as a formal representation of the applicants for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 retrospectively, from the year they actually became eligible and entitled.
Source reference: p.3The respondents were directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering the applicants' case, in light of Annexure A1 and the "UT of J&K & Ors. Vs. Som Raj" judgment, and communicate it to the applicants within eight weeks.
Source reference: p.3-4No costs were awarded.
Source reference: p.4Original Court PDF
Sonam Chorol & Ors. v. Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors., O.A. No. 61/261/2026
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in