[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Mohammad Muzamil Tantray vs Stte F Jk And Ors on 25 February, 2026

Author: Javed Iqbal Wani

Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani

                                                             S. No. 103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                   AT SRINAGAR

                                      Date of Pronouncement:25.02.2026
                                                Uploaded on:04.03.2026

                SWP NO.2133/2017 WP(C) No.319/2024

MOHAMMAD MUZAMIL TANTRAY                         ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)

Through: Mr. Saqib Amin Parray, Advocate.
                                   Vs.

STTE F JK AND ORS.                                        ...Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
                          O R D E R (ORAL)

25.02.2026

1. Petitioner in the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution states to have been working as Junior Engineer (Electric) in the

respondent corporation initially having been engaged vide order dated

03.08.2005 on contractual basis, in pursuance whereof the petitioner joined

his duties and his contractual term of engagement came to be extended by

the respondents from time to time vide orders dated 04.03.2006, 20.05.2006,

18.07.2007 and 11.02.2008, whereafter the petitioner herein could not

continue to render his services in the respondent Corporation due to

domestic problems.

2. It is further stated that the petitioner, however, came to be re-engaged

as Junior Engineer by respondents on 15.02.2011, having regard to the

services rendered earlier in the respondent Corporation, and upon

subsequent re-engagement of the petitioner, the salary of the petitioner was

enhanced to Rs.13,500/- P.M, in terms of order dated 30.01.2015.

3. It is next stated that the petitioner, after the re-engagement, continued

to discharge his duties in the respondent Corporation for a considerable

period of time and requested the respondents for regularization of his

services on the analogy of similarly circumstanced engagees namely Firdous

Jan, Jai Kishan and Ashraf Ganai and others and that on account of failure of

the respondent Corporation to regularize the services of the petitioner, SWP

No.1421/2013 came to be filed by petitioner herein before this Court, which

writ petition, however, came to be dismissed on 12.04.2016 by this Court

observing that the petitioner has been working on need basis and not on

contractual basis, feeling aggrieved of the said dismissal of the petition, the

petitioner herein filed LPA No.89/2016 before this Court which came to be

allowed on 01.08.2017, and the writ court judgment came to be set aside

while holding that the petitioner has been working against a clear vacancy

on contractual basis and, as such, is entitled to regularization, not only under

the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Special Provisions Act 2010 (for short

'the Act of 2010'), but also on the analogy of similarly situated persons.

4. It is further stated by the petitioner that subsequent to passing of the

judgment dated 01.08.2017 in the aforesaid LPA, the respondents passed a

speaking order dated 08.09.2017 stating therein that the petitioner has not

completed seven years of services as contractual employee, therefore could

not be regularized in terms of the Act of 2010, and that his case for

regularization would be placed before the Board of Directors for

regularization upon his completion of seven years of service and dissatisfied

with the said consideration order, petitioner herein preferred SWP No.

2133/2017 before this Court calling in question the said consideration order,

besides seeking other reliefs.

5. It is stated that in the meantime, the petitioner also filed a contempt

petition for enforcement of the Division Bench judgment/Order dated

01.08.2017, wherein the respondents being contemnors therein filed

statement of facts accompanied with a consideration order dated 16.12.2023

rejecting the claim of the petitioner herein on the ground that the services of

the petitioner herein could not be regularized in terms of Act of 2010 as the

petitioner has been engaged after the cut-off date provided in the said Act of

2010 and aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner herein preferred

WP(C) No. 319/2024.

6. Reply in both the petitions has been filed by the respondents wherein

the orders under challenge are being defended and dismissal of the petitions

is being sought, fundamentally on the ground that the petitioner herein has

been engaged after coming into being of the Act of 2010, i.e. 29.04.2010,

and therefore the petitioner cannot be extended the benefits of regularization

and also that the Act of 2010 has been repealed, in view of coming into

being of Reorganization Act 2019.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the initial claim lodged by

petitioner herein for regularization was based upon the premise that the

respondent Corporation regularized the services of the various other Junior

Engineers engaged after the engagement of the petitioner in 2013 and

regularized their services in the year 2016, ignoring the claim of the

petitioner herein for said regularization.

Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondents

even now wrongly declined the claim of the petitioner herein for

regularization in terms of the Act of 2010 as once the respondents

themselves in the earlier round of litigation had conceded to the claim of the

petitioner for regularization and had stated that the same would be placed for

confirmation before the Management and Finance Committee and thereafter

to be ratified by Board of Directors.

8. On the contrary, counsel for the respondents while controverting the

submissions of counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the stand taken by

the respondents in the replies filed to the petitions and would pray for

dismissal of the petition.

9. It is an admitted fact that in the earlier round of litigation, respondents

acknowledged the claim of the petitioner for regularization and specifically

provided that the said claim of the petitioner would be placed before the

Management and Finance Committee being the Empowered Committee in

terms of the Act of 2010, and thereafter before the Board of Directors of the

respondent Corporation for its ratification and therefore in presence of the

said stand taken by the respondent corporation in the earlier round of

litigation, the respondents cannot now decline the claim of the petitioner for

regularization on any ground whatsoever, including on the ground urged in

the order dated 16.12.2023 impugned in WP(C) No.319/2024.

10. Besides there is no denial to the fact that the Board of Directors of the

respondent corporation in its 68th meeting held on 20.02.2013 adopted the

Act of 2010 for regularization of its employees vide order No.

JKSPDC/9154-57 dated 12-03-2013, and it is not in dispute that the

petitioner was reengaged as Junior Engineer Electrical on 15.02.2011 prior

to the adoption of the Act of 2010 by the respondent Corporation in 2013

and in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2010 the petitioner even has

completed 07 years from 2011 to 2018 and thus rendered eligible for

regularization. Even otherwise also, the Reorganization Act came into being

on 31.10.2019, and up till the said date, the petitioner admittedly has

completed 07 years of service, as such, before coming into being of

Reorganization Act of 2019 read with S.O.1229(E) of 2020 dated

31.03.2020, petitioner has already completed seven years of service,

rendered him eligible and entitled for regularization.

11. Thus, the only inescapable conclusion that can be drawn is that the

respondents have unfairly, unreasonably inasmuch as discriminately denied

the petitioner regularization of his services under the Act of 2010.

12. Having regard to the aforesaid position, the petitions succeed and are

accordingly disposed of as under:

i) Respondents are directed to accord effective consideration to

the claim of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the Act

of 2010 and extend him all consequential benefits to which the

petitioner herein would be entitled thereto, as expeditiously as

possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the

date a copy of this judgement and order is produced by the

petitioner before the respondents.