Respondents directed to decide seniority and pension entitlement through a reasoned speaking order.

The applicant was serving as an Assistant Professor in Botany in the Higher Education Department, Jammu & Kashmir.

The Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission issued Notification No. 06-PSC of 2009 dated 6 February 2009 for recruitment to, inter alia, 19 posts of Assistant Professor/Lecturer in Botany under the Open Merit category.

Although the initial selection list dated 20 October 2009 included only 17 candidates, the applicant was subsequently recommended against one of the two remaining vacancies through Government Order No. 260-HE of 2010 dated 14 June 2010.

According to the applicant, the Government Order placed him at Serial No. 18, above Shri Mohammad Shaikhul Ashraf at Serial No. 19, thereby establishing his superior merit position.

He contended that his appointment formed part of the original recruitment process and should not be treated as a later or independent appointment for seniority purposes.

He further claimed that, despite being selected pursuant to the same recruitment notification, he was placed under the New Pension Scheme because his appointment order was issued later, whereas other candidates received the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.

The applicant challenged his placement in the tentative seniority lists issued through Notifications No. 02-JK(HE) of 2026 dated 29 June 2026 and No. 03-JK(HE) of 2026 dated 16 July 2026, and sought correction of his seniority and extension of consequential pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme.

Whether the applicant was entitled to have his seniority fixed in accordance with the merit position reflected in Government Order No. 260-HE of 2010 dated 14 June 2010, particularly above Shri Mohammad Shaikhul Ashraf?

Whether the applicant was entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme on the ground that his appointment arose from the same recruitment process initiated under Notification No. 06-PSC of 2009?

Whether the respondents were required to reconsider the applicant’s claims regarding seniority and pensionary benefits and pass a reasoned decision?

The Tribunal did not decide the substantive entitlement to seniority or the Old Pension Scheme and did not rely on any specific statutory provision or judicial precedent.

It applied the procedural principle that an administrative authority must consider a properly raised service grievance in accordance with law and communicate its decision through a reasoned or speaking order.

The Tribunal also exercised its discretion to treat the original application as a representation and directed the competent respondents to examine the applicant’s eligibility and entitlement without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The applicant relied on the sequence of names in Government Order No. 260-HE of 2010 to assert that he was placed at Serial No. 18 and consequently senior to Shri Mohammad Shaikhul Ashraf at Serial No. 19.

He also contended that the later issuance of his appointment order could not, by itself, deprive him of the Old Pension Scheme when his selection arose from the same recruitment notification and vacancies.

However, the Tribunal did not adjudicate whether the Government Order conclusively determined seniority or whether the applicant satisfied the legal conditions for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme.

At the applicant’s request, it disposed of the matter by directing the respondents to examine both claims, keeping in view the applicant’s merits, eligibility and entitlement, and to issue a speaking order.

The respondents were directed to treat the O.A. as a representation and decide the applicant’s claims concerning correction of seniority and entitlement to pensionary benefits in accordance with law.

A speaking order was required to be passed within eight weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the applicant’s case.