Shamim Akhter vs Rehana Batool
2026 Latest Caselaw 742 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Shamim Akhter vs Rehana Batool on 13 February, 2026

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                       Regular List

                                                      Serial No. 48


 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                 AT JAMMU
CPSW No. 108/2019
c/w
CCP(S) No. 227/2020

Shamim Akhter
                                                      .....Petitioner(s)

                Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate.

              Vs

Rehana Batool
                                                    .....Respondent(s)

                Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with
                         Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Assisting Counsel.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
                      ORDER

(13.02.2026)

CCP(S) No. 227/2020

01. The respondents have filed fresh compliance report,

wherein it has been indicated that case of the petitioner has been

considered and rejected in terms of consideration order dated

16.12.2025, a copy whereof has been placed on record.

02. As per the order of the writ court, the respondents were

directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in

the light of the position noted in the said order. It was noted by the

writ court that petitioner claims to have been engaged as Casual

Labourer in the year 1990 and on that basis he is projecting his

case for regularization of service. It was also noted by the writ court

c/w

that the petitioner had contended that certain persons who have

been engaged after the petitioner, stand regularized by the

respondents. In the light of these submissions of the petitioner, the

respondents were asked to consider the case of the petitioner in

accordance with the law and the rules holding the field at the

relevant time.

03. It seems that at one stage the case of the petitioner was

examined by the respondents at various levels in the light of

provisions contained in SRO-64 which was in vogue at the relevant

time. In fact, the Empowered Committee directed creation of a post

of Helper for the purpose of regularizing the services of the

petitioner. However, there was an issue with regard to the

qualification of the petitioner as he had not passed the Matric

Examination as a result whereof the matter was again sent to the

competent authority for grant of relaxation. It is at this stage that

the respondents instead of considering case of petitioner for grant of

relaxation in qualification etc., they came up with the plea that

regularization scheme being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India is under review. The fresh consideration order

passed by the respondents goes on to state that regularization of

daily rated worker is a policy decision and it cannot be done without

a decision in this regard from the Government.

c/w

04. As already indicated the respondents had to consider the

case of petitioner for regularization of his services in the light of the

rules and guidelines holding the field when the said direction was

passed. The review or revocation of those rules and guidelines

subsequently will not have any effect upon the case of the

petitioner. The respondents have to accord consideration to the case

of the petitioner on the basis of the rules and guidelines that were in

vogue at the time when the order was passed by the writ court.

Therefore, consideration order dated 16.12.2025 passed by

respondents cannot be accepted.

05. Accordingly, a fresh consideration order is directed to be

passed and a copy thereof shall be produced before this Court on

next date of hearing, failing which coercive measures shall follow.

06. List on 10.03.2026.

07. List as above.

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 13.02.2026 Bunty