Subsequent repeal cannot defeat a regularization claim processed while the statutory scheme remained in force.

The applicant was selected for Mali training in 2003–04 and was engaged as a contractual Gardener (Mali) on consolidated remuneration by order dated 30.12.2004.

The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 provided for regularization of eligible ad hoc, contractual and consolidated employees. Although 37 Gardeners were regularized in 2015, the applicant was excluded, allegedly because of a break in service.

His case was considered by the Empowered Committee in its 38th meeting on 29.01.2014, which required condonation of the break in service and resubmission of the case.

Subsequently, in its 61st meeting dated 25.04.2018, the Empowered Committee recommended the applicant’s name, along with 50 others, for regularization subject to departmental verification.

Despite the recommendation, no regularization order was issued, and the applicant’s case continued to remain pending.

In O.A. No. 180/2023, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider his case in light of the Empowered Committee’s recommendation.

The respondents thereafter rejected the claim by Government Order No. 21 (Flori) of 2023 dated 22.08.2023, principally on the ground that the 2010 Act had been repealed.

The applicant challenged that order in the present proceedings under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the applicant’s claim for regularization solely because the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 had subsequently been repealed, despite the applicant’s case having been processed and recommended while the Act was in force.

Whether the applicant was entitled to an unconditional direction for regularization, or whether his eligibility—including the issue of the alleged break in service—required verification by the competent authority.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 governed regularization of eligible ad hoc, contractual and consolidated employees and required satisfaction of the prescribed statutory conditions.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a pending claim which had already entered the statutory regularization process while the enactment was in force cannot be rejected merely because the enactment was subsequently repealed, particularly where administrative delay prevented finalization of the claim.

However, a recommendation or prior consideration does not itself establish entitlement; the applicant must still satisfy all applicable eligibility conditions, including resolution of any deficiency concerning a break in service.

The respondents also relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) , (2006) 4 SCC 1, concerning the limits governing regularization of contractual and temporary employees.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s case was materially different from a claim initiated for the first time after repeal of the statutory scheme. His engagement pre-dated the repeal, his case had been considered by the Empowered Committee in 2014, and he was subsequently included in the 2018 recommendation for regularization subject to verification.

Therefore, the subsequent repeal of the 2010 Act could not, by itself, defeat consideration of a claim that had already been processed under the Act while it was operative.

Nevertheless, the record showed that the Empowered Committee had earlier identified a break in service requiring condonation, and the Tribunal declined to determine that factual issue itself or to order automatic regularization.

The proper course was to quash the rejection order and require the competent authority to examine the contemporaneous record, determine whether the break had been condoned or otherwise removed, and verify compliance with the statutory requirements.

Government Order No. 21 (Flori) of 2023 dated 22.08.2023 was quashed insofar as it rejected the applicant’s regularization claim.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the claim on the basis of the record existing while the 2010 Act was in force, including the Empowered Committee’s proceedings and recommendations, and not to reject it merely because the Act was subsequently repealed.

The competent authority was required to verify the alleged break in service and all other eligibility conditions; if the applicant was found eligible, consequential orders for regularization and admissible service benefits were to be passed.

The exercise was to be completed through a reasoned and speaking order within 12 weeks of receipt of the certified order.

No unconditional direction for regularization was issued, and no order as to costs was made.