logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 JKHC 074 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
Case No : CCP.(S). No. 668 of 2019 & SWP. No. 1501 of 2018
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR
Parties : Hafiz-Ul-Rehman Versus Hirdesh Kumar & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: F.S. Butt, Advocate. For the Respondents: Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG.
Date of Judgment : 28-01-2026
Head Note :-
Subject

Comparative Citation:
2026 Lab IC 952,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010

2. Catch Words:
- regularization
- retrospective effect
- civil services
- writ petition
- contempt
- division bench
- consideration order

3. Summary:
The petitioner seeks enforcement of a writ court order dated 25.07.2018 directing the respondents to regularize his service retrospectively under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, in accordance with the law laid down in Afaq Rasool Gadda’s case. The respondents rejected the claim through a consideration order dated 03.10.2019. The Court notes divergent judgments of co‑equivalent benches on retrospective regularization but emphasizes that the writ court’s direction is clear and final, granting regularization effective from 26.09.2010. Since the respondents have not challenged the writ order, they must comply. Consequently, the Court directs the respondents to issue a fresh order granting retrospective regularization as per the writ court’s direction. The matter is listed for further hearing on 02.03.2026.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

01. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking implementation of order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the writ court whereby a direction has been issued to the respondents to consider the grievance projected by the petitioner in the light of law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in Afaq Rasool Gadda’s case and pass order giving retrospective effect to the regularization of the petitioner from the date it is found due in view of the law laid down in the said judgment.

02. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction passed by the writ court, it seems that the respondents have considered the case of Regular List the petitioner and rejected his claim in terms of consideration order dated 03.10.2019.

03. So far as the issue relating to grant of benefit of regularization retrospectively under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 is concerned, there are divergent opinions expressed by co-equivalent benches of this Court. While Division Benches of this Court in State of J&K & ors Vs. Afaq Rasool Gadda and ors, 2017 (II) SLJ, 720, Mrs. Rabia Shah Vs. State of J&K & ors, 2017 (1) JKJ HC 490 and State of J&K & ors Vs. Ulfat Ara and ors, LPA(SW) No. 39/2019 decided on 27.11.2020, have held that regularization of an eligible adhoc/contractual/consolidated employee has to take effect immediately after the appointed date in a case where such appointee has completed seven years of service before the appointed date but another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Majid Magrey Vs. State of J&K & ors, LPA(SW) No. 29/2019 decided on 18.05.2022 has, after considering the ratio laid down in the earlier judgments, taken a different view by holding that regularization cannot be from an earlier date other than the date of regularization.

04. Normally because of diversion of opinion of co-equivalent benches of this Court on the issue, the respondents, by not giving retrospective effect to the regularization of the petitioner in the present case, could have avoided the contempt proceedings as their action would not have amounted to willful disobedience of the order of the Court but in the present case the writ court has issued clear cut directions upon the respondents to give retrospective effect to the regularization of the petitioner in the light of the law laid down in Afaq Rasool Gadda’s case. In fact the writ court in para (6) of the order has clearly held that petitioner is entitled to regularization w.e.f., 26.09.2010. The order of the writ court has acquired finality as the same has not been assailed by the respondents before any higher forum. In this view of the mater, the respondents have no option but to grant benefit of regularization of services w.e.f., the aforesaid date. The consideration order passed by respondents, therefore, is not in tune with the order of the writ court.

05. For the foregoing reasons, the respondents are directed to issue fresh order by giving the benefit of retrospective regularization of services of the petitioner in tune with the order of the writ court. Needful shall be done by next date of hearing.

06. List again on 02.03.2026.
 
  CDJLawJournal