Sr. No. 29 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 2267/2024 Udham Singh …. Petitioner(s) Through:- Mr. K.D.S Kotwal, Advocate with Ms. Pariksha Parmar, Advocate. V/s UT of J&K and Ors. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 03.03.2025 1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioner is directed against an order and judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 1489/2021 titled “Udham Singh Vs. UT of J&K and Ors” whereby the Tribunal has disposed of the O.A. with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner herein in the light of the judgment passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 61/1167/2021 by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 2. The limited grievance projected by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the Tribunal has directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services in terms of the judgment passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 61/1167/2021 yet, the order of the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization dated 16.07.2020, which was impugned before the Tribunal, has not been specifically quashed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the operative portion of the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal calling upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed in O.A. No. 61/1167/2021 cannot be implemented or complied with unless order dated 16.07.2020 passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization, is specifically quashed. 4. From reading of the operative portion of the judgment impugned, it clearly transpires that order dated 16.07.2020 which was the subject matter of challenge in O.A. before the Tribunal has been impliedly quashed, though there is no specific direction passed by the Tribunal. 5. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this petition partially and provide that the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services shall be considered in terms of Judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 61/1167/2021 which has been upheld by this Court in WP(C) No. 2083/2024, by passing a reasoned and speaking order and earlier order of the respondents dated 16.07.2020, whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization of SRO 64 of 1994 was rejected, shall be deemed to have been quashed. (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge Jammu: 03.03.2025 Neha-1