Time-bound consideration of representation for SRO-149 benefits in light of settled judicial precedents.

The applicant, a Matriculate holding an ITI Diploma in Electronics Mechanic, was appointed as Technician-III in the Power Development Department (PDD) on January 11, 2001

The applicant seeks the extension of benefits under SRO 149 of 1973, asserting that such benefits were granted to similarly situated employees via Government Order dated April 3, 2001, but withheld from her

While the benefits of the SRO were suspended by the government in 2006, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of J&K restored them via a judgment dated May 8, 2017

This judicial position attained finality when the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the State's Special Leave Petition (SLP) in The State of J&K & Ors. v. Provincial Power Employees Union & Ors. on February 4, 2026

Following the SLP dismissal, the applicant filed a representation with the respondents, which remains pending

Whether the respondents are required to consider the applicant’s claim for service benefits under SRO 149 of 1973 in light of the High Court judgment dated 08.05.2017 and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP on 04.02.2026

The court considered SRO 149 of 1973 and the Government Order dated April 3, 2001, which qualify Matriculates with ITI/Diploma certificates for specific service benefits

The court further relied on the doctrine of judicial finality and parity, stemming from the High Court of J&K’s decision (08.05.2017) and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP in The State of J&K & Ors. v. Provincial Power Employees Union & Ors.

The Tribunal focused on the procedural grievance of the applicant—specifically, that despite being a direct recruit with the requisite qualifications, she was being denied benefits already accrued to similarly situated employees following protracted litigation

Rather than conducting a full merit-based adjudication, the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s primary request was for the respondents to dispose of her representation in light of the settled legal position

The Tribunal emphasized that the administrative authorities must act in consonance with the rules in vogue and the entitlements established by the higher judiciary

Consequently, the Tribunal opted to direct an administrative review to ensure the applicant’s case is evaluated against the relevant statutes and precedents

It directed the respondents to treat the O.A. as a representation and consider the applicant’s claims strictly in accordance with the law and applicable rules

The respondents are ordered to pass a speaking and reasoned order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment