WP (C) No. 382/2025 Page 1 of 3 Sr. No. 42 Suppl. Cause List. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP (C) No. 382/2025 Rashida Akhter …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Shaqir Haqani, Adv. Vs. Union Territory of JK & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG with Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA & Ms. Rahella Khan, AC CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE O R D E R 25.02.2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is admitted and taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved and has called in question the order and judgment dated 10th December 2024 passed in TA No. 958/2021 titled Rashida Akhter vs. State of JK & Ors. passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar [“the Tribunal”], whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that in view of the stand of the respondents that the petitioner has been regularized, the OA has become infructuous. 3. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the real controversy involved in the application. It is argued by Mr. Shaqir Haqani, learned counsel for the petitioner that the application was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal not for seeking the regularization of his services but for giving effect to the regularization of his services retrospectively w.e.f. 26th September 2010. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we find that the facts are not disputed in this case. Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 27.02.2025 WP (C) No. 382/2025 Page 2 of 3 Indisputably, the petitioner came to be appointed as Teacher in the School Education Department on ad-hoc basis vide Government Order No. 1360-GAD of 2002 dated 2nd August 2002. She, therefore, completed seven years continuous ad-hoc service against the available post on 1st August 2009. 5. Under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 [“the Act of 2010”], the petitioner acquired right of regularization on the post held by her on ad-hoc basis on the appointed date i.e., the date of commencement of the Act of 2010. 6. The appointed date in terms of Section 2(c) is the date of commencement of the Act. Section 1(2) clearly provides that the Act would come into force from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. There is no dispute that the Act of 2010 came to be published in the Government Gazette on 29th April 2010. The petitioner having acquired the eligibility to the regularization was thus entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 29th April 2010. 7. The issue raised by Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, learned GA with regard to the grant of retrospective effect to the regularization of the petitioner has already been dealt by this Court in WP (C) No. 551/2021 titled Dr. Muneeb Iqbal vs. Union Territory of JK & Ors. decided on 10th February 2025. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment applies squarely to the case of the petitioner on hand. 8. The Tribunal has missed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and, therefore, has landed in a serious error of dismissing the application of the petitioner as rendered infructuous. 9. Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, learned GA has also raised the issue of maintainability of the application before the Tribunal on the ground of delay and laches. He submits that the cause of action accrued to the petitioner on the commencement of the Act of 2010 and, therefore, filing of petition in the year 2018 before this Court which came to be transferred to the Tribunal is hit by delay and laches. 10. We regret our inability to accept this specious plea of the learned counsel for the respondents. Ordinarily and as per the mandate of Act of 2010, the case of the petitioner for regularization ought to have been considered immediately on the commencement of the Act of Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 27.02.2025 WP (C) No. 382/2025 Page 3 of 3 2010. However, the same was delayed and it was only in the year 2017, i.e., on 15th June 2017, the petitioner was regularized. that too, with prospective effect. 11. The cause of action to seek retrospective regularization thus accrued to the petitioner on 15th June 2017. The petitioner immediately rushed to the Court and filed the petition in the year 2018. The petition, therefore, cannot be held to be hit by delay and laches. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this petition and set-aside the order of the Tribunal dated 10th December 2024 with a direction to the respondents to treat the regularization of the petitioner as Teacher in the School Education Department with effect from the appointed date i.e., 29th April 2010 when the Act of 2010 came into force. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. The respondents to work out the consequential benefits and release the same in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is served upon them. 13. The petition is allowed. (PUNEET GUPTA) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 25.02.2025 Altaf Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 27.02.2025