Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ut Of J & K Through vs Kuldeep Raj on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2731-DB
Sr. No. 03
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP (C) No. 2351/2025
CAV No. 1892/2025
1. UT of J & K through .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Commissioner/Secretary to Govt.,
Floriculture, Gardens & Parks Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu-180001.
2. Director,
Floriculture, Gardens & Parks Department,
Jammu-180006.
Through :- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA
v/s
1. Kuldeep Raj, S/o Munshi Ram, .....Respondent(s)
R/o H. No. 29, Old Janipur, Jammu.
2. Joginder Lal, S/o Girdhari Lal,
R/o Village Karloop, Jammu.
3. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Suraj Prakash,
R/o Village Mawa Bhrama, Akhnoor, Jammu.
4. Sushil Kumar, S/o Krishan Chand,
R/o Village Patta, Udhampur.
5. Mulk Raj Parihar, S/o Roshan Lal,
R/o Dachhan, Kishtwar.
6. Chaman Lal, S/o Munshi Ram,
R/o Village Rakh Nagwani, Jammu.
7. Vijay Kumar Saproo, S/o Sham Lal Saproo,
R/o Durga Nagar, Jammu.
8. Suram Chand, S/o Chanu,
R/o Ward No. 7, Udhampur.
9. Vijay Kumar Sharma, S/o Sansar Chand,
R/o Village Chak Patyali, Jammu.
10. Khursheed Ahmed, S/o Ghulam Hussain,
R/o Village Village Mori, Bonjwah, Kishtwar.
11. Sushil Kumar Bhat, S/o Bansi Lal,
R/o Muthi, Jammu.
12. Tilak Raj, S/o Uttam Chand,
R/o Mandi, Dansal, Samba.
13. Shokat Ali, S/o Lal Hussain,
R/o Surankote, Poonch.
14. Mohammad Aslam, S/o Lal Mohammad,
R/o Jawahar Nagar, Rajouri.
2 WP (C) No. 2351/2025
CAV No. 1892/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2731-DB
15. Mohammad Shabir, S/o Makhna,
R/o Koteranka, Rajouri.
16. Jameel Ahmed, S/o Noor Hussain,
R/o Thanamandi, Rajouri.
17. Mohammad Javed Iqbal, S/o Shah Mohammad,
R/o Ward No. 9, Rajouri.
18. Ghulam Rasool, S/o Abdul Samad,
R/o Ward No. 7, Poonch.
19. Satish Kumar Bhat, S/o Nathi Ji Bhat,
R/o Muthi Camp, Jammu.
20. Zakir Hussain, S/o Akhter Hussain,
R/o Ward No. 1, Doda.
21. Majid Alyas, S/o Mohammad Sabir,
R/o Ward No. 3, Doda.
22. Mushtaw Ahmed, S/o Ghulam Nabi,
R/o Shaheedi Mohalla, Kishtwar.
23. Shabir Ahmed, S/o Mohammad Abdullah,
R/o Link Road, Kishtwar.
24. Mohammad Iqbal Malik, S/o Ghulam Rasool,
R/o Marwah, Kishtwar.
25. Adil Hussain, S/o Ghulam Hussain,
R/o Village Nagam, Banihal.
26. Mohammad Tariq Sheikh, S/o Ghulam Din,
R/o Loran Mandi, Poonch.
27. Mulkh Raj, S/o Banarsi Lal,
R/o R S Pura, Jammu.
28. Mukesh Kumar, S/o Jagdish Raj,
R/o Village Garladore, Marh, Jammu.
29. Mohammad Khalid, S/o Lal Mohammad,
R/o At present Gujjar Nagar, Jammu.
Through :- Mr. Sudesh Sharma, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
1 0. 0 9. 2 0 2 5
1) Heard learned counsel for the caveators.
2) Caveat stands discharged.
CAV No. 1892/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2731-DB
1. Impugned in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India by the UT of J & K is an order and judgment dated
03.03.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu
Bench, Jammu ["the Tribunal"] in OA No. 706/2021 titled
"Kuldeep Raj & Ors. Vs. UT of J & K & Anr." whereby, the learned
Tribunal has allowed the OA of the respondents and held them
entitled to the benefit of regularization of their services
retrospectively w.e.f. 30.12.2011 i.e. the date of completion of their
continuous seven years' service on contractual basis as Gardeners
(Malies) in Floriculture Department.
2. The impugned judgment is challenged by the petitioners, primarily
on the ground, that the Tribunal has not appreciated that in view of
first proviso to Clause (v) of Section 5 of the J & K Civil Services
(Special Provisions) Act, 2010 ["the Act of 2010"], the
respondents were entitled to the regularization of their services only
from the date of issuance of formal order of regularization,
irrespective of the fact, that they may have completed more than
seven years of service on the appointed date or thereafter.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record. Admittedly, the respondents who were
working as Gardeners (Malies) on contractual basis against clear
vacancies completed seven years' continuous service on 30.12.2011
and, therefore, attained the eligibility to be regularized under the
provisions of the Act of 2010. Apart from the other grounds raised
by the respondents in support of the OA, it was specifically pleaded
CAV No. 1892/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2731-DB
that similarly situated Gardeners (Malies) who were engaged in the
Directorate of Floriculture, Kashmir along with respondents on
30.12.2004 were given the benefit of regularization w.e.f.
25.10.2013. It was thus, a clear case setup by the respondents in the
OA that the respondents being similarly situated with their
counterparts working in Kashmir Division could not have been
discriminated. This aspect of the matter has not been given due
consideration by the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal has allowed the OA only on the ground that the
respondents acquired the right of regularization immediately on
completing the continuous contractual service of seven years. We
could have adverted to the argument of Mr. Suneel Malhotra,
learned GA appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in the face of
provisions of Section 5 (v) of the Act of 2010, the benefit of
regularization can be given to the respondents only w.e.f. the date
of their actual regularization and not from the date they completed
their seven years of service. However, having regard to the fact that
we find it a case of discrimination between two set of employees
who are similarly situated who have been treated differently by the
same department.
5. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the creation of 150 posts of
Gardeners (Malies) by the Government vide Government Order No.
249-TSM of 2004 dated 06.12.2004, several candidates, both in
Jammu Division and Kashmir Division came to be engaged as
Gardeners (Malies) on contractual basis on 30.12.2004. All of them
completed their seven years' continuous service on 30.12.2011.
CAV No. 1892/2025 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2731-DB
However, the cases of the Gardeners (Malies) working in Kashmir
Division came up for consideration before the empowered
committee earlier and regularization orders in their favour were
issued on 25.10.2013, whereas, in the case of respondents who were
similarly placed, the regularization order was issued only on
14.08.2015.
6. We are, therefore, in agreement with the submissions made by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the
respondents are at least entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 25.10.2013.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this petition partially and
hold the respondents entitled to their regularization w.e.f.
25.10.2013 i.e. when their counterparts engaged along with them on
contractual basis in Kashmir Division came to be regularized, with
all consequential benefits.
8. The judgment of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent.
9. Disposed of along with connected application(s), if any.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
10.09.2025
Manan
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
