Respondents Directed to Consider Re-Designation Claim on Parity with Similarly Situated Employees Under Applicable Government Orders

The applicant was initially engaged as a Daily Wager in the erstwhile DRDA Anantnag/Kulgam and was regularized on July 12, 1995, under Government Order No. 26-F of 1994.

He served as a Works Supervisor at Block Qazigund and possesses 10+2 qualifications and a trade certificate.

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to re-designate him as a Works Supervisor effective February 27, 2014, and subsequently as Multitasking Staff (MTS) from March 29, 2022, on parity with similarly situated employees who received these benefits under various Government Orders issued between 2022 and 2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to re-designation and parity in service benefits with similarly situated employees under the relevant Government Orders and judicial precedents.

2. Whether the Original Application can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the petition as a representation for time-bound consideration.

Government Order No. 372-JK(RD&PR) of 2022, Government Order No. 445-JK(RD&PR) of 2024, and Order No. 213-DRDK of 2026, which govern the re-designation of Helpers to MTS.

Judicial precedent established in Ghulam Mohammad Bhat & Ors. Vs. State of J&K & Ors. (2017) and O.A. No. 872/2024, which affirmed the entitlement of similarly situated employees to such re-designations and consequential benefits.

The applicant argued that despite being similarly situated to other Helpers who were granted re-designation and consequential benefits, he was denied the same treatment.

The respondents (Union Territory of J&K) did not object to this approach, provided the case was decided in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.

The Tribunal, without delving into the specific merits of the applicant's claims, determined that since the parties were ad idem (in agreement), the most efficient judicial route was to compel the executive to evaluate the applicant’s eligibility against the existing legal framework and precedents.

The respondents are ordered to decide the applicant's claim regarding re-designation and consequential benefits (including seniority and pay fixation) in light of the cited Government Orders and the judgment in Ghulam Mohammad Bhat. A comprehensive, reasoned, and speaking order must be passed within eight weeks, provided the applicant is found eligible and there is no legal impediment.