Retrospective deemed employee status restores entitlement to cadre upgradations granted to similarly situated peers.

The applicant was appointed as a Census Operator in 1974 and promoted to Research Assistant in 1980

In 1982, the Sericulture Research Wing was transferred to Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST) via SRO 381

Per University Order No. 498 of 1984, the posts of Research Assistants were upgraded to Assistant Research Officers (ARO); however, the applicant was excluded because he had sought repatriation to his parent department

After a period of recall to the parent department in 1995, the applicant was permanently absorbed into SKUAST in 2005 via Government Order No. 227-Agri, which declared him a "deemed employee" retrospectively from 1982 with all consequential benefits

Following his retirement in 2008, the applicant’s representations for the 1984 upgradation were rejected by the University on June 11, 2013, on the grounds of delay, retirement, and the alleged non-existence of the post

The applicant subsequently challenged this rejection

1. Whether the respondents were legally justified in denying the applicant the benefit of upgradation from Research Assistant to Assistant Research Officer w.e.f. 30.11.1984, especially after granting him retrospective "deemed employee" status from 1982

2. Whether the application was barred by the doctrine of delay and laches given the applicant’s retirement in 2008 and the filing of the petition in 2013

The Tribunal applied the constitutional principle of equality in public service, which prohibits discriminatory treatment of individuals within the same cadre

It relied on the doctrine of "continuing wrong," establishing that where a grievance affects retiral and pensionary benefits, delay does not necessarily bar relief, particularly when a speaking order is issued subsequently

the Tribunal emphasized the requirement for administrative authorities to show "due application of mind" and maintain consistency in their records, holding that a retrospective regularization of service status (deemed employee) effaces prior temporary distinctions used to deny service benefits

The Tribunal found the respondents' justification for denying the 1984 upgradation—that the applicant had sought repatriation—to be unsustainable.

It reasoned that once the 2005 Order retrospectively established the applicant as a "deemed employee" from 1982, the "very foundation" for his earlier exclusion ceased to exist

The Tribunal noted that the respondents' claim regarding the non-existence of the post contradicted their own records and the 1984 upgradation order

Regarding delay, the Tribunal held that since the matter involved a "continuing wrong" affecting pension and the applicant had consistently represented his case, technical dismissal on grounds of laches would perpetuate "evident inequality"

It further observed that the subsequent grant of higher pay scales in a different stream did not waive the applicant’s right to the 1984 status upgrade, as the latter significantly impacted his service record and pension fixation

It held that the applicant was entitled to parity with other Research Assistants who were upgraded in 1984

The respondents were directed to: (i) treat the applicant as upgraded to Assistant Research Officer w.e.f. 30.11.1984; (ii) re-fix his pay on a notional basis; (iii) rework his retiral and pensionary benefits; and (iv) release the resultant arrears.

The exercise must be completed within three months, with arrears paid within one month thereafter

No costs were awarded