Mandamus issued directing time-bound consideration of representation for retrospective regularization and payment of consequential service benefits.

The applicant worked as a daily wager in the Geology and Mining Department from 1985 to 2000 in various capacities, including geological investigation and watch and ward duties

He was disengaged in 2000 and subsequently filed SWP No. 2051/2009. On 26.07.2010, the High Court directed the respondents to consider him for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 or for a Class IV post

After the dismissal of the state's appeal (LPA No. 88/2011) on 14.09.2012 and subsequent contempt proceedings, the respondents regularized his services on 17.03.2018

The applicant filed the present petition seeking retrospective regularization from 1993-94 (upon completion of seven years of service) and the payment of resulting arrears and 7th Pay Commission benefits

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective regularization of service from the years 1993-1994 in accordance with SRO 64 of 1994

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to consequential benefits, including salary arrears and annual increments under the 7th Pay Commission

J&K Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules, 1994, notified via SRO 64 of 1994, which mandates the regularization of daily wagers upon the completion of seven years of continuous service

The court also adhered to the principles of administrative law regarding the "disposal by representation," allowing an administrative authority to first decide a claim through a "reasoned and speaking order" before judicial merits are fully adjudicated

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the claim for retrospective effect but focused on the procedural consensus reached by the parties. The applicant’s counsel requested that the Transferred Application (T.A.) be treated as a formal representation to the department

The respondents' counsel concurred, provided the consideration was bound by applicable rules and regulations

Consequently, the Tribunal applied the principle of judicial restraint, directing the executive authority to evaluate the applicant's eligibility, entitlement, and the specific mandates of SRO 64 of 1994 against the facts of his service record

This exercise must be completed within 12 weeks from the receipt of the order, subject to the applicant's eligibility and the absence of legal impediments