Respondents Directed to Consider Regularization of Intervening Period Based on Precedent and Established Judicial Analogy

The applicant, Javid Ahmad Rather, was appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) on November 26, 1994, and was stationed at Lumding, Assam

He approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize a period of 1675 days (from August 22, 1996, to May 17, 2001) by treating it as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) for pensionary and service benefits

The applicant claimed entitlement based on the precedent set in Riyaz Ahmad Mir v. Union of India Others (2012)

During the proceedings, the applicant’s counsel limited the prayer to requesting that the Original Application (OA) be treated as a representation for time-bound consideration by the respondents

Whether the respondents should be directed to treat the applicant's OA as a formal representation and decide upon the regularization of the intervening 1675-day period in light of judicial precedent

The court's order is centered on the principle of parity in administrative action and the binding nature of judicial precedents on similarly situated employees.

The court referred to the judgment of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Riyaz Ahmad Mir v. Union of India Others (SWP No. 1964/2012, decided on 14.11.2012), which addressed the regularization of service breaks as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) for the purpose of qualifying service and retiral benefits

The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of the applicant's claim regarding the 1675-day service gap. Instead, it focused on the procedural efficiency of administrative Redressal.

Given the applicant’s limited prayer, the Tribunal analyzed whether a directive to the respondents to consider the claim would be appropriate

The Tribunal reasoned that if the applicant is indeed "similarly situated" to the petitioner in the Riyaz Ahmad Mir case, the respondents are duty-bound to examine the claim under the applicable service rules and regulations, provided no other legal impediments exist

By directing a "reasoned and speaking order," the Tribunal ensured administrative accountability without overstepping into the executive's role of verifying service records

The respondents are ordered to pass a reasoned, speaking, and comprehensive order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the Tribunal's order

No costs were awarded