Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

Akhlaq Ahmed vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu · Decided on 2 March 2026 · Citation: (2026) 03 CAT CK 0411

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member (J) · Ram Mohan Johri, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 61, 238 Of 2026

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 396 words

Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member J

1.

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section-19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. Issue an order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing the services of the Applicant, despite his continuous and uninterrupted service as a Contingent Paid Worker since 01.01.2010, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

ii. Direct the Respondents to consider and grant regularization/appointment of the Applicant against a Class-IV post in the School Education Department, in terms of SRO-308 of 2008 dated 16.10.2008, or any other applicable policy governing regularization of Contingent Paid/Local Fund Paid employees, with effect from the date he became eligible, along with all consequential benefits;

iii. Direct the Respondents to release and pay to the all consequential monetary and service benefits, including, fixation of pay, continuity of service for all intents and purposes, and other admissible benefits, in accordance with law;

iv. Direct the Respondents to consider and decide the Applicant's pending representation (Annexure-A7) within a stipulated time frame, by passing a reasoned and speaking order;

Grant any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if this OA is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to treat this OA as representation of the applicant and decide the same within a stipulated timeframe.

3.

Keeping in view the limited prayer made by the applicant’s counsel we deem it appropriate to dispose of the instant Original Application with the direction to the respondents to treat this OA as representation of the applicant and consider his case in the light of SRO 308 of 2008, dated 16.10.2008 as well as Order No. 24-CEOR of 2025, dated 13.10.2025 by virtue of which a similarly situated employee namely Abdul Hamid has been regularized.

4.

The respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering the case of the applicant and communicate a copy of the order so passed to the applicant.

5.

The whole exercise should be undertaken within a period of six weeks.

6.

With this, OA stands disposed of. No costs.