AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Objections already filed on behalf of respondents have been treated as counter and petitioner's counsel states that he does not intend to file a
rejoinder thereto. With agreement of counsel therefore the matter is heard and taken up for final disposal.
Admitting to have been regularized vide Government Order No. 197 of 2000 dated : 02.12.2000 after putting in seven years as Daily Wager
the petitioner maintains that the regularisation effected should in terms of certain judgments of the court read with SRO 64 of 1994 have been given
effect from 1997 when he completed seven years as Daily Wager.In reply, the respondents have pleaded that due to non availability of a post at
the relevant time petitioner's regularisation could not be given retrospective effect as claimed. Thus, the controversy is limited to the date of giving
effect to order of regularisation.
On consideration, 1 find that the question of giving effect to regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994 stands already settled by an authoritative
judgment of this court in "" State of JandK and Ors V. Mahraj Krishan Bhat and Ors"" reported as 2004(2) SLJ 612, wherein it has been laid
down; that regularisation in terms of aforesaid SRO could be effected only against an available post, because under rules the appointments are
required to be made in regular pay scale, and if no posts are available or sanctioned or created by competent authority there can be no valid
appointment. In the instant case, the regularisation has been given effect from the date of issuance of Govt. Order No. 197 of 2000 dated:
02.12.2000. Nothing has been pleaded by petitioner to suggest, muchless to show or substantiate, that, prior to that, regular posts were available
with the concerned department against which petitioner's appointment could or should have been regularised. That being so, petitioner's prayer for
giving retrospective effect to his regularisation appears to be unsubstantiated.
At the same time however, the question of retrospective effect stated to have been given to regularisation of respondent No. 6 with whom
petitioner claims parity on the ground that he was similarly situated with him, can not be left unanswered. So the petition is disposed of with the
observation that if respondent No. 6 is found to have been lawfully regularised as claimed, and petitioner's claim of parity with him in all respects is
found to be correct, then respondents may, consider petitioner's claim at par with hand, and while doing so, if necessary, provide him opportunity
to substantiate his parity claim as such.
Matter stands accordingly, disposed of along with all connected CMP(s).