HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 2334/2025 1. UT of J & K through Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Health & Medical Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar-180001. 2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Govt. of UT of J & K, Civil Secretariat, Jammu-180001. 3. Director, Health Services, Jammu-180001. 4. Chief Medical Officer, Udhampur-182101. 5. Block Medical Officer, Health & Family Welfare, Ram Nagar, District Udhampur-182101. .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG v/s Kapoor Chand, Age 62 years, S/o Sh. Sandokhu, Safai Karamchari (Retd.), then posted at Allopathic Dispensary, Rang, R/o Village Rang Tehsil Ram Nagar, District Udhampur-182101. .....Respondent(s) Through :- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 2 6. 0 8. 2 0 2 5 1. The issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by a judgment dated 12.08.2025 of this Court rendered in WP (C) No. 1431/2025. The only issue which is raised by Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that after the repeal of J & K Civil Services (Special Provision) Act, 2010 [“the Act of 2010”] and also the superannuation of the respondent, it is not permissible to order regularization. 2. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Sharma and do not find any substance therein for the reason that the respondent had completed seven years continuous service while working on consolidated basis against the clear vacancy much prior to the Sr. No. 32 2 WP (C) No. 2334/2025 repeal of Act of 2010 and the right which has accrued to the respondent during his service cannot be taken away only on the ground that when the case of the respondent was taken up for consideration, he stood superannuated. 3. This apart, from the record we find that, , the respondent was in service when his case for regularization was processed under the Act of 2010, which was cleared by the Empowered Committee in its 62nd meeting. However, the same could not be given effect to and in the meanwhile, the respondent retired. 4. The petitioners denied the claim of the respondent only on the ground that no order of the respondent’s regularization could now be passed retrospectively. The reasoning given by the petitioners in support of Order No. DHSJ/Legal/8122-25 dated 08.09.2021 is totally irrelevant and illogical. The right to regularization, as observed above, accrued to the respondent when he was in service and when the Act of 2010 was in operation. 5. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this petition and the same, is accordingly, dismissed along with connected application(s), if any. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 26.08.2025 Manan Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No