GH HASSAN MALA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five petitions are clubbed for hearing in terms of on record directions of the LPA Bench on hearing LPAs against Single Bench judgment dated 31 -10 -1991, governing all five writ petitions. The writ petitions were allowed with directions in terms of the relief sought by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench on agreement of the parties set aside the above Single Bench Judgement and the Single Bench was requested to hear the matter afresh after the pleadings are completed by the parties in terms of directions contained in the judgement.

(2.) THIS judgment shall govern all five cases as common questions of fact and law are involved. It is conceded by the parties that the private respondents except Mohammad Ashraf Shuntoo represented by Mr. Altaf Haqani, have either retired on superannuation or are no more in service.

(3.) THE basic facts germane to adjudicate and dispose of the matters need to be taken note of. Petitioners of these writ petitions were appointed on ad hoc basis as Tehsil Supply Officer/Supervisor in pay scale of 280 -520 in 1973 -74. Their services were regularised in terms of Govt. Order 496/FST of 1977 dated 7 -10 -1977. Petitioners claim that in the light of this regularisation order dated 7 -10 -1977, their period of service prior to this date is to be reckoned towards seniority, pay and increments and other benefits, as they would be deemed to have been regularised on initial appointment. The private respondents have been admittedly promoted after the petitioners entered service as above, as well on ad hoc basis. However, they have been regularised by order passed earlier to 7 -10 -1977. Private respondents claim of appointment in the cadre of Supervisor/Tehsil Supply Officers earlier to petitioner is not a fact and the benefits including promotion given to them on that basis would prejudice the service rights of the petitioners. Showing them senior to petitioners is illegal. Petitioners pray that they may be placed in seniority list at proper place and their service prior to 7 -10 -1977 may be reckoned as service regularised by the said order. Petitioner have also alleged that they are graduates and appointed to direct quota. The private respondents have been shown senior to them on an erroneous assumption when their academic qualification is just matric or under matric and have less merit than the petitioners. Petitioners claim of seniority and consequential benefits has been the prejudice of their service rights. The petitioners prayer therefore, is for direction showing petitioners senior to private respondents after considering their service prior to 7 -10 -1977 as regular and counting towards seniority and consequential benefits including promotion. Quashment of promotion orders of the private respondents, vis -a -vis the petitioners are prayed.