1 WP (C) No. 1108/2025 Serial No. 46 SUPP. LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1108/2025 CM(2935/2025) MUZAFFAR AHMAD DAR …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. S.H. Thakur, Advocate with Mr. Zaman Irshad, Advocate Vs. UT OF JK AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jahangir Dar, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDE R 16.05.2025 Sanjeev Kumar-J (oral): 1. The petitioner, Muzaffar Ahmad Dar, invokes the extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 8th February, 2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench, [“the Tribunal”], in OA No. 1020/2023 titled “Muzaffar Ahmad Dar Vs. UT of JK and others”, whereby the Tribunal has disposed of the OA with a direction to the respondents to consider petitioner’s claim for regularization under SRO 520 of 2017, within a period of eight weeks. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged the impugned order of the Tribunal on multiple grounds. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner in support of his claim, we deem it appropriate to set out a few material facts relevant to the disposal of this petition. Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 19.05.2025 2 WP (C) No. 1108/2025 3. It appears that the petitioner came to be engaged as a casual labourer @ Rs. 45 per day and was posted in the Irrigation Sub Division, Kulgam, by the then Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Kulgam, vide order 6488-89 dated 16th October, 1993. As claimed, the petitioner continued to perform his duties as a casual labourer/daily wager and completed more than seven (7) years of service. When his claim for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court by way of SWP No. 2507/2011, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 28th November, 2011, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the petitioner’s case came up for consideration before the Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Flood Control Department, Srinagar, who vide his communication dated 24th November, 2011, recommended the regularization of the petitioner with the observation that the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements envisaged under SRO No. 64 of 1994. Alleging that the Commissioner Secretary to the Government, Irrigation & Flood Control Department, was sitting over the recommendations of the Chief Engineer concerned and had not taken any decision, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of SWP No. 1362/2014. The said writ petition was disposed of at the motion hearing stage vide order dated 3rd July, 2014, whereby a direction was issued to the Commissioner Secretary to the Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 19.05.2025 3 WP (C) No. 1108/2025 Government, Irrigation & Flood Control Department, to take a decision on the recommendation made by the Chief Engineer. 5. In compliance with the order dated 3rd July, 2014, passed in SWP No. 1362/2014, the case was initially considered by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Kulgam, though the direction was to the Commissioner Secretary. The Executive Engineer, vide its consideration order bearing No. 5156-57 dated 6th August, 2022, rejected the petitioner’s claim for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 and instead observed that the case would be processed before the competent authority in terms of SRO 520 of 2017, dated 1st December, 2017. 6. Since the order passed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Kulgam, was not in conformity with the order dated 3rd July, 2014, passed by the learned Single Judge the Court, seized of the contempt petition filed by the petitioner, directed the Commissioner Secretary to the Government, Department of Irrigation & Flood Control, to pass a fresh order. This is how the Government order No. 74-JK (JSD) of 2023 dated 13th April, 2023, came to be passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Jal Shakti Department. Once again the claim of the petitioner for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 was rejected. 7. The order dated 06.08.2022, passed by the Executive Engineer, and Government order dated 13th April, 2023, were assailed by the petitioner in OA No. 1020/2023. It was specifically pleaded by the petitioner in the said OA that he had been engaged in the year 1993 and, having completed more than seven (7) years of continuous service as daily wager, was entitled to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994, Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 19.05.2025 4 WP (C) No. 1108/2025 and that, the Principal Secretary to the Government Department of Irrigation & Flood Control had erroneously held the petitioner not entitled to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994, and, therefore, the Government order No. 74-JK (JSD) of 2023, dated 13th April, 2023, was bad in the eye of law and deserved to be quashed. 8. Unfortunately, as it is evident, the Tribunal, without inviting the objections from the respondents and without adjudicating the issue raised before it, disposed of the OA by directing the respondents to consider petitioner’s case for regularization under SRO 520 of 2017. From reading of the impugned order, it clearly transpires that the Tribunal did not adjudicate the issue raised before it and abdicated its adjudicatory powers to the respondents who had repeatedly rejected the case of the petitioner on one pretext or the other. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, and the clear case set up by the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to adjudicate as to whether the petitioner was eligible for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994. It was only after returning a finding that the claim of the petitioner was not covered by SRO 64 of 1994, the Tribunal could have gone further to examine and find out as to whether the case of the petitioner for regularization would fall under SRO 520 of 2017. No such adjudication has been made by the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has approached before this Court/the Tribunal on three occasions, but in none of the petitions filed by him, there was adjudication made of the issue involved. Needless to say, when a person complains of his violation of his rights and approaches a court of law, it is the bounden duty of the Court to look into his grievance and adjudicate upon his rights. Such judicial function cannot be Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 19.05.2025 5 WP (C) No. 1108/2025 abdicated to the respondents against whom the person has come up in complaint. 9. Without saying much, we allow this petition, set aside the impugned order dated 8th February, 2024, passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter back for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal shall invite objections from the respondents and determine the issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 or not and then issue appropriate directions accordingly as may be warranted in law. 10. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 02.07.2025. 11. Disposed of. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 16.05.2025 “ARIF” Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 19.05.2025