Respondents must assess regularization claims against precedents and extend equivalent benefits to similarly situated applicants.

The applicants—Bala Ram, Santosh Kumari and Bholi—approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking regularisation of their services under the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provision) Act, 2010, with effect from the appointed day, 29 April 2010, or from the date on which they became statutorily eligible.

They also sought consequential benefits, including pay fixation, increments, seniority, continuity of service, arrears and interest on delayed monetary and retiral benefits.

During hearing, their counsel submitted that the applicants would be satisfied if the respondents were directed to consider their claims in light of the decisions in O.A. No. 1320/2024, Kanta Devi & Others v. UT of J&K & Others, and O.A. No. 1813/2021, Kapoor Chand v. UT of J&K & Others.

1. Whether the respondents should examine the applicants’ claim for regularisation and consequential benefits in light of the decisions in Kanta Devi and Kapoor Chand.

2. Whether the applicants, if found similarly situated and equivalent to the beneficiaries in those decisions, should receive the same benefits.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved person to seek adjudication of service-related grievances before the Tribunal.

The applicants relied upon the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provision) Act, 2010, under which eligible employees may claim regularisation from the appointed day or from the date of statutory entitlement.

The Tribunal also directed consideration of the applicants’ claims in accordance with the principles emerging from Kanta Devi & Others v. UT of J&K & Others, O.A. No. 1320/2024, and Kapoor Chand v. UT of J&K & Others, O.A. No. 1813/2021; however, the Tribunal did not independently set out or adjudicate the merits of those precedents.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the applicants were substantively entitled to regularisation or monetary benefits.

Instead, having regard to the applicants’ limited submission and the cited decisions, it directed the respondents to examine their cases under the principles applicable in Kanta Devi and Kapoor Chand.

The respondents must determine whether the applicants are similarly situated to the claimants in those cases and whether the requisite equivalence is established.

If so, the same benefits must be extended to the applicants.

The Tribunal thus left the factual and legal assessment of eligibility to the competent authorities, subject to the specified precedents and the prescribed time limit.

The respondents were directed to examine the applicants’ claims in light of the judgments in O.A. No. 1320/2024 and O.A. No. 1813/2021.

If the applicants are found to be similarly situated and the equivalence is established, the respondents must extend the same benefits granted in those cases.

The exercise was to be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

No order was made as to costs.