Srinagar, May 20: High Court of J&K and Ladakh has held that regularisation of an ad-hoc or contractual employee cannot be from an earlier date other than the date of regularisation.
Pointing out that under J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 the regularization has to be from the date of regularisation irrespective of the person having completed seven years of service earlier, a division bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi said: “It is settled law that no person can claim regularization in service until and unless the regularisation is provided under any statute, rule or Government order”.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by one Abdul Majeed seeking regularisation of his services as a Gardner with effect from 19.06.2008 ,when he completed seven years of services, instead of 26 December 2017, when he was regularised.
While Majeed was claiming regularization after completion of seven years of his service, the Court said in keeping with the section 5 of the Act , the regularization of ad-hoc or contractual or consolidated appointees shall have effect only from the date of regularization irrespective of the fact that they have completed more than seven years of service on the appointed date or thereafter but before such regularisation.
“ In view of the unequivocal language employed in the proviso, it is implicit that the regularization has to be from the date of regularisation irrespective of the person having completed even years of service earlier,” the Court said, adding “there is no other statutory rule or provision which may provide for regularization of the services of the petitioner-appellant (Abdul Majeed) from some earlier date than the date of regularisation” .
The regularisation, as such, the court said, cannot be ordered from any earlier date other than the date of the regularisation.
Subsequently the Court upheld its single judge bench’s verdict, underlining that there was no error or illegality in it. “The order passed by the writ court (single bench) and the petitioner-appellant (Abdul majeed) is not entitled to regularisation under the Act from any earlier date other than the date of regularisation,” the court said while dismissing the appeal.