Service benefits must be extended to similarly situated employees in accordance with settled judicial precedents.

The applicant, a matriculate holding an ITI Certificate (Electrician), was appointed as a Cable Jointer in the Power Development Department (PDD) on February 2, 2001, following a selection process by the SSRB

He seeks the benefit of the technical pay scale (Rs. 5000-8000 unrevised and subsequent revised scales) under the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1973 (SRO-149)

Although similar benefits were extended to employees in the Home and Health Departments, and despite a 2009 committee recommendation for PDD employees, the applicant was denied the benefit

A long-standing litigation on this issue (Provincial Power Employees Union v. State) concluded on February 4, 2026, when the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal

Following this dismissal, the applicant submitted a representation on February 9, 2026, which remained undecided by the respondents

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to decide the applicant’s representation for the grant of benefits under SRO-149 of 1973 in light of finalized judicial precedents

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 based on his qualifications and parity with similarly situated employees under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

The Tribunal considered the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1973 (SRO-149), specifically Category A of Schedule C, which prescribes higher pay scales for ITI-qualified matriculates

It referenced subsequent pay revisions under SRO 91 of 1982, SRO 370 of 1987, and the 1998 Rules which revised the technical scale to Rs. 5000-8000

The legal principles of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were central to the claim

The court relied on the precedent set by the J&K High Court in Provincial Power Employees Union v. State (2017), which attained finality after the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7992/2022 on February 4, 2026

The Tribunal noted the extensive history of litigation regarding SRO-149, observing that the benefit had already been extended to various departments and specific employees within the PDD

It highlighted that the respondent department's own committees had recommended in 2009 that all eligible ITI-qualified employees should receive the benefit

The Tribunal addressed the applicant's delay in filing by noting that he was awaiting the final outcome of the Provincial Power Employees Union case before the Supreme Court

The court applied the principle that when a legal issue has been settled by the highest court, the administration must consider pending representations from similarly situated individuals in light of that settled law

The Tribunal avoided a direct ruling on the merits, focusing instead on the procedural requirement for the respondents to pass a reasoned order

It directed the respondents to treat the O.A. and the previous representation dated February 9, 2026, as a fresh representation for consideration

The respondents were ordered to decide the matter in accordance with the law and relevant judicial precedents, ensuring the applicant receives parity if he is squarely covered by the cited judgments and faces no legal impediments

A speaking and reasoned order must be passed within eight weeks of receiving the court's order