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.