Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Nov 28: High Court has directed the Government to give the benefit of regularization to the employees who came to be engaged as Teachers/Physical Education Teachers on ad hoc basis from time to time within the ambit of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rajnesh Oswal while hearing three appeals of Government challenging therein the single bench judgments passed in various writ petitions by directing the Government to give the benefit of regularization to the services of these employees in Education Department, dismissed all the three appeals.
These appeals by the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir (now Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir), in terms of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, were filed against the judgment dated 11th of July, 2018, passed in four writ petitions whereby the Writ Court while allowing all the writ petitions had directed the authorities to give the benefit of regularization to the services of employees w.e.f. 26th of September, 2010 by applying the principle as detailed out in the Division Bench judgment in the case of Ms. Rabia Shah Vs. State and Ors.
The petitioners who approached the court for their grievances came to be engaged as Teachers/Physical Education Teachers on ad hoc /contractual basis from time to time.
The DB said that admittedly, all the employees had rendered more than seven years service as contractual and ad hoc employees when the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 came to be promulgated.
The DB while referring the said Act said, there is no dispute that in terms of provisions of the Act of 2010, all the writ petitioners-employees became entitled to regularization of their services and the cases of the writ petitioners along with many others were considered by the competent authority and orders of their regularization were passed.
The writ petitioners accepted their regularization and joined their posts however, the effect to the regularization to them was neither given from the appointed date mentioned in the Act of 2010 nor from the date of completion of seven years but was given from the date of order of their regularization and aggrieved of the action of the authorities approached the court seeking direction to the respondents to treat them having been regularized from the day and date they were engaged as contractual for the first time.
The petitions were resisted by the authorities who placed strong reliance on Section 5 of the Act of 2010 and contended that in the face of first Proviso appended to Section 5, the writ petitioners cannot claim regularization from a date other than the date on which they were actually regularized by issuance of a formal order by the competent authority.
The DB while gone through the judgment of the Writ Court do not find any illegality or infirmity therein. “We also feel bound by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Rabia Shah. Despite great persuasion of Government counsel, we could not persuade ourselves to give a re-look to the judgment rendered in the case of Rabia Shah nor could we find any distinctive features in the appeals in hand”, DB said.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel