Respondents must consider regularization claims as representations and issue reasoned orders within four weeks.

The applicants, employees of the Jammu & Kashmir Health Services Department, filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking regularization of their services under the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provision) Act, 2010, with effect from the appointed day, 29 April 2010, along with consequential service and monetary benefits, including pay fixation, increments, seniority, arrears and interest

Their claim was founded on the judgment dated 8 August 2025 of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in U.T. of J&K & Ors. v. Kanta Devi, U.T. of J&K & Ors. v. Bittu, and U.T. of J&K & Ors. v. Kulvinder, which the applicants stated had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the corresponding special leave proceedings

At the hearing, however, counsel for the applicants limited the prayer and requested that the Original Application be treated as a representation and that the respondents be directed to decide the applicants’ claims in light of those judgments within a fixed period

1. Whether the Original Application should be treated as a formal representation of the applicants and considered by the respondents in light of the judgments relied upon by them

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the applicants’ claims within a stipulated period

3. Whether the Tribunal should itself grant regularization and consequential service and monetary benefits under the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provision) Act, 2010

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

The applicants relied upon the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provision) Act, 2010, particularly the statutory framework concerning regularization with effect from the appointed day, 29 April 2010

They also relied upon the High Court’s judgments dated 8 August 2025 in Kanta Devi, Bittu and Kulvinder, stated to have been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the corresponding SLP proceedings; the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicants’ claims in light of those authorities but did not adjudicate the underlying entitlement to regularization

The Tribunal noted that the applicants had originally sought substantive relief of regularization and consequential benefits, but their counsel confined the immediate request to consideration and disposal of their claims by the competent authorities

Since the prayer was limited and administrative consideration of the applicants’ entitlement in light of the cited judgments was appropriate, the Tribunal refrained from determining the merits of regularization, seniority, arrears or interest itself.

Instead, it directed the respondents to treat the Original Application as a formal representation and to examine the claims in accordance with the applicable law and the cited precedents, ensuring that the decision was reasoned and speaking

The respondents were directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order

The Tribunal did not itself grant regularization or consequential monetary/service benefits.

No order as to costs was made.

The application for joint hearing, M.A. No. 1394/2026, was allowed