Rule of Law: Contractual employees' claims for regularization must be considered in light of statutory protections and binding judicial precedents.

The applicant was engaged as a paramedic (Lab Assistant) at the Government Dental College and Associated Hospitals, Srinagar, in 2014 via Order No. 34-GDC of 2014

His engagement was made under SRO 384 of 2009 read with SRO 409 of 2013, following a selection process by a government-constituted committee

Claiming continuous service, the applicant initially approached the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 08/2019 seeking permanent absorption and the quashing of Order No. 397-GDC of 2018 dated 31.12.2018

Upon the reorganization of the state, the matter was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as T.A. No. 4918/2021

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization and permanent absorption against the post of Lab Assistant based on his continuous contractual service

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant’s case in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhishek Sharma Vs. The State of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors.

The Tribunal referred to the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in Abhishek Sharma Vs. The State of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors. (decided on 09.03.2026, arising out of SLP (c) No. 5108 of 2023) regarding the rights of contractual employees

Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, which governs the regularization of ad-hoc, contractual, or consolidated appointees

The selection frameworks of SRO 384 of 2009 and SRO 409 of 2013 also provided the initial regulatory context for the engagement

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the applicant's claims but focused on the consensus reached between the parties

The applicant’s counsel limited the prayer to a time-bound consideration of the case based on the precedent set in Abhishek Sharma

The respondents, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, conceded to this limited prayer provided the consideration followed applicable rules and regulations

Consequently, the Tribunal found it appropriate to direct the administrative authorities to evaluate the applicant’s eligibility under the statutory framework of the 2010 Act and the specific judicial guidelines issued by the Apex Court

The respondents are ordered to pass a comprehensive, reasoned, and speaking order within eight weeks of receiving the judgment. All connected Miscellaneous Applications were also closed