STATE OF J&K Vs. PARAS RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal preferred by the Forest Department of the State and its officers is directed against judgment and order dated 28.10.2013, rendered by the Writ Court holding that the writ petitioners are entitled to regularization of their services in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 [Refer JKS Soft JKS/943]. As a consequence, the order dated 12.03.2011, refusing to regularize their services has been quashed. A further direction has been issued to the appellant for passing appropriate order within a specified time. Learned Writ Court has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in case of State of J&K & ors. v. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail & ors,2012 4 JKJ 1051 In paragraph 13, the Division Bench has taken notice of an earlier decision rendered by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of J&K & ors., 2003 2 SLJ 475 . It has been held that the cutoff date, which was laid down in SRO 64 of 1994 has been extended to 6.11.2001 in terms of Govt. order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 06.11.2001. The aforesaid order was issued in pursuance to Cabinet Decision No. 135/11(B) dated 10.09.2001. The judgment of the Division Bench in Ashok Kumar's case was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9298 of 2003. While upholding the order passed by the Letters Patent Bench in Ashok Kumar's case and other connected matters. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the judgment of the Constitution Bench rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, 2006 4 SCC 1 , had no application because the writ-petitioners were employed by the State Government and they were claiming the benefit of a scheme formulated by SRO 64 of 1994, as modified by Notification dated 06.11.2001. It was further observed that Hon'ble the Supreme Court was perfectly justified in taking the view in its judgment. The appeals were, therefore, dismissed.

(2.) In the present case, the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent for regularization was rejected by the appellant holding that they were appointed on 01.03.1994 after 31.01.1994 which was the cut off date fixed in the scheme of regularization by SRO 64 of 1994. The aforesaid date stood extended by Notification dated 06.11.2001 as has been held in Ashok Kumar's case . The view has also been accepted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court . In view of the above, the instant appeal has no merit and does not warrant admission. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.