Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ut Of J&K Th. Comm./Secy. To vs Nasir Hassan Hamdani on 27 July, 2026
2026:JKLHC-SGR:245-DB
Serial No. 22
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
WP(C) No. 2662/2023
CM No. 6321/2023
Date of pronouncement: 27.07.2026
Date of uploading:- 27.07.2026
1. UT of J&K th. Comm./Secy. to .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Govt., Forest Department, Civil
Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar
2. Director, Forest Protection Force
J&K Srinagar.
3. Joint Director, Forest Protection
Force, Jammu.
4. Deputy Director, Forest Protection
Force, Jammu
Through: Ms. Maha Majeed, Advocate vice
Mr. M. Qadri, Sr. AAG
vs
1. Nasir Hassan Hamdani, Age 47 years S/o ..... Respondent(s)
M. A. Hamdani R/o Sanat Nagar Byepass,
Srinager.
2. Namrata Raina, Age 46 years, D/o M. K.
Raina, R/o Rehari Colony, Jammu.
3. Miss Muzamil Niazi, Age 43 years, D/o
Abdul Kabir Bhat, R/o Kullar Tehsil
Pahalgam, District Anantnag.
4. Kalpana Koul, Age 44 years, D/o Kashi
Nath, R/o Room No. 2, Block No. 6, JDA
Flats, Jammu.
5. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Age 45 years, S/o
Amar Nath Sharma, R/o Tarror Tehsil &
District Samba.
6. Ms. Tabasum Gul, Age 43 years, D/o
Ghulam Mohd. Ganai, R/o Fateh Kadal,
Tehsil and District Srinagar.
7. Ghulam Mohammad Baghwan, S/o Abdul
Ahad Bagwan, R/o Handwara Kashmir.
8. Nisar Ahmad Bhat, Age 47 years, S/o
Mohd. Maqbool Bhat, R/o Tankipora,
Tehsil & District Srinagar.
Through: None
2 WP(C) No. 2662/2023
2026:JKLHC-SGR:245-DB
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
27.07.2026
Sanjeev Kumar ‘Chief Justice(A)’
1. This is a petition by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and
three others filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
throw challenge to an order and judgment dated 10.07.2023 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, Srinagar
[the Tribunal] in T. A. No. 62/2354/2021 (in SWP No. 2975/2018)
titled “Nasir Hassan Hamdani and others Vs. State of Jammu and
Kashmir and others“, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the petition
of the respondents and quashed the Government order No. 321-FST
of 2013 dated 30.08.2013 and directed the petitioner herein to
regularise the services of the respondents in terms of SRO 64/1994
read with Govt. Order No. 1285 GAD of 2001 dated 06.11.2001 from
the date of completion of 7 years of service with the consequential
benefits of Old Pension Scheme.
2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of this petition, as are
gatherable form the pleadings of the parties before the Tribunal, are
that the respondents were appointed as Junior Assistants in the Forest
Protection Force of the Forest Department on consolidated basis
during the year 1997-98 and were then put in the regular pay-scale of
3050-4590. Indisputably, the appointment of the respondents on
3 WP(C) No. 2662/2023
2026:JKLHC-SGR:245-DB
consolidated emoluments was not through any regular selection
process.
3. Be that as it may, they continued to perform their duties as Junior
Assistants till their cases came to be considered under the J&K Civil
Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 [“the Act of 2010”]. Vide
Govt. Order No. 321-FST of 2013 dated 30.08.2013, the services of
the petitioners were regularised on prospective basis. This order was
accepted by all the petitioners and it was only after a period of more
than five years, the petitioners approached a Single Bench of this
Court by way of SWP No. 2975/2018 seeking, inter alia, a writ of
certiorari for quashing the Govt order dated 30.08.2013 and treating
them as have been regularly appointed since the year 1997-98.
4. As is evident from the reading of the entire writ petition, the
respondents did not base their claim for regularisation from any date
other than the date of their initial appointment on consolidated basis.
There is, however, reference of SRO 64 of 1994 and Govt. Order No.
1285 GAD of 2001 in the petition made in support of the claim set up
in the petition. The petition filed by the respondents was contested by
the petitioners, who in their reply clearly submitted that the
petitioners having completed seven years of continuous service on
consolidated basis against clear vacancies were regularised as Junior
Assistants under the Act of 2010 and this was done by the petitioners
in terms of Govt. Order dated 30.08.2013 (supra). The Tribunal has
considered the rival contentions in the light of material on record and
4 WP(C) No. 2662/2023
2026:JKLHC-SGR:245-DB
came to the conclusion that the respondents herein ought to have
been considered for regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994 read with
Govt. Order No. 1285 GAD of 2001.
5. The petitioners are aggrieved and have called in question the
impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal, primarily on the ground
that the Tribunal has not appreciated that provisions of SRO 64 of
1994 were applicable only to the daily-wagers and not to the persons
appointed against clear vacancies either on consolidated, temporary
or ad-hoc basis. It is submitted that Govt. Order No. 1285 GAD of
2001 was though issued by the petitioners to give the benefit of
regularisation to ad-hoc appointees having completed seven years of
continuous service, but the same was later withdrawn before the
respondents could complete their continuous service of seven years.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed
by the Tribunal cannot sustain in law and therefore, deserves to be set
aside. We give our reasons as under :-
(1) The respondents having accepted the benefit of regularisation
under the provisions of the Act of 2010 without any protest or
demur, cannot be permitted to challenge the same, that too,
after a gap of more than five years. Not only the respondents
are estopped by their conduct to call in question the Govt.
Order of 2013 (supra), but their petition before the Tribunal
was hit by delay and latches also.
5 WP(C) No. 2662/2023
2026:JKLHC-SGR:245-DB
(2) The respondents cannot seek the benefit of SRO 64 of 1994,
which provided for regularisation of daily-wagers, who
having been appointed before 31.03.1994 would complete
continuous service of seven years. Admittedly, the
respondents were neither the daily-wagers nor were they
engaged prior to issuance of SRO 64 of 1994.
(3) The respondents were also not entitled to the benefit of Govt.
Order No. 1285 GAD of 2001 dated 06.11.2001 for the
reason that the said Govt. Order was later withdrawn vide
Govt. Order No. 168-GAD of 2004 dated 09.02.2004 and that
was before the respondents could complete seven years of
continuous service.
(4) The respondents never ever before their regularisation under
the Act of 2010 staked their claim for regularisation under
Govt. Order of 2001.
7. In view of the above, we find merit in this writ petition and the order
impugned, passed by the Tribunal, is set aside.
8. Disposed of.
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Chief Justice (A)
Jammu
27.07.2026
Vishal Sharma
Whether the order is reportable?: Yes/No
