SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir Government has ordered retrospective regularisation of 47 Junior Engineers in the Public Works (Roads and Buildings) Department, granting them the benefit from the dates they completed seven years of continuous contractual service, along with consequential service and monetary benefits admissible under the rules.
The decision follows the Supreme Court’s judgment dated December 4, 2024, in cases involving the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Junior Engineers Sajad Ahmad Malik and others, and Gulzar Ahmad Mir and others. The Public Works (R&B) Department issued Government Order No. 351-PWD(R&B) of 2026 on October 12, sanctioning revised regularisation dates for the 47 petitioners.
The order, issued by Financial Commissioner and Additional Chief Secretary Anil Kumar Singh, also directs the authorities to amend the relevant seniority lists and calculate and verify the financial implications through the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officers (DDOs). The sanction, however, remains subject to ratification by the Council of Ministers and the outcome of any pending writ petition or other proceedings before a competent court.
The case dates back to the contractual appointments of the Junior Engineers under the Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003, also known as SRO-255 of 2003. The employees were subsequently regularised under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, but approached the High Court seeking regularisation from the dates of their initial selection and appointment, along with consequential seniority and other benefits.
A Single Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court at Srinagar, through its judgment dated July 11, 2018, allowed the petitions and directed the government to extend the benefit of regularisation in accordance with the principles laid down in the earlier Division Bench judgment in Rabia Shah versus State and others and Rabia Shah versus B. R. Sharma and others.
The Single Bench directed the authorities to modify the regularisation orders and grant the benefit from September 26, 2010, with consequential benefits to be extended within four months of service of a certified copy of the judgment.
The government challenged the decision before a Division Bench. The connected appeals, including LPA(SW) No. 39/2019 clubbed with LPA No. 148/2020 and LPA No. 149/2020, were dismissed on November 27, 2020, upholding the findings and directions of the Single Bench.
The Union Territory subsequently approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petitions. The apex court, in its judgment dated December 4, 2024, dismissed the appeals and upheld the view taken by the Division Bench.
In the judgment, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had followed the principles laid down in the Rabia Shahcase and had rejected the government’s objections. The earlier Division Bench had found no illegality or infirmity in the Single Bench judgment and had held that there were no distinguishing features warranting a different conclusion.
The legal dispute centred on the interpretation of Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, particularly the conditions governing the regularisation of eligible ad hoc, contractual and consolidated employees and the date from which such regularisation could take effect.
The judgment in the Rabia Shah case had held that completion of seven years of service was an eligibility condition for regularisation under the 2010 Act. It also clarified that employees who completed the requisite service after the appointed day would be governed by the relevant provisions of the Act.
The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the Union Territory’s review petition on February 3, 2026, citing defects, delay and merits, as recorded in the Public Works Department’s order.
Following the dismissal of the appeals and review petition, the matter was referred to the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs for advice on implementation. The Law Department, through its communication dated August 12, 2026, conveyed that the advice previously issued to the School Education Department was applicable to the Public Works Department as well.
The matter was also examined by the Finance Department, which advised implementation of the court’s directions in relaxation of the relevant rules, subject to the approval of the competent authority and conditions concerning the effective dates of regularisation.
In its communication dated September 21, 2026, the Finance Department advised that employees who had completed seven years of service before the appointed date should be regularised from September 26, 2010, while those completing seven years thereafter should be regularised from the date they completed the qualifying service. It also raised concerns about seniority-related issues arising if the petitioners were regularised before their seniors.
However, the Public Works Department’s order observed that the proposed conditions concerning September 26, 2010, instead of the appointed day of April 29, 2010, and the requirement that regularisation should not precede that of senior employees needed to be reconsidered to ensure conformity with the Supreme Court’s judgment dated December 4, 2024. The department stated that the matter would be taken up separately with the Finance Department.
The General Administration Department was also consulted because the matter involved wider legal, financial and service implications requiring a uniform government decision. In a communication dated October 6, 2026, it advised the department to submit a formal coordination note, supported by the relevant documents, for consideration of the competent authority.
Following directions conveyed during a meeting on October 7, the General Administration Department, through a communication dated October 11, conveyed the Chief Minister’s approval for implementing the Supreme Court judgment in respect of eligible employees across the departments concerned. The approval provided for revision of regularisation dates and consequential service and monetary benefits, followed by the processing of the matter for post-facto approval of the Council of Ministers.
The Public Works Department subsequently issued the order for the 47 Junior Engineers under its administrative control.
Among those named in the order are Tanveer Iqbal Khan, Yasir Rashid Saraf, Kulbir Singh, Shamim Iftikhar Rasool, Malik Zahoor Ahmad, Ashaq Hussain Andrabi, Mir Ruja Amin, Feroz Ahmad Ganai, Syed Hilal Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad Bhat, Jan Asif Gull, Aijaz Ahmad Khan, Khurshid Ahmad Untoo, Tahir Maqbool, Shair Ali Nengroo, Khursheed Ahmad Bhat and Gowhar Ahmad Khan.
The list also includes Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Bhat, Nisar Ahmad Banday, Tariq Hameed Lone, Bashir Ahmad Iqbal, Parevaiz Ahmad Sheikh, Abdul Aziz Lone, Aljaz Ahmad Wani, Sajad Mushtaq, Tanveer Ahmad Malik, Mohammad Maqbool Bhat, Riyaz Ahmad Bhat, Lateef Hussain Malla, Abdul Rashid Sofi, Tasaduq Hussain Laherwal, Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat, Wasim Hassan Moon, Harvinder Singh, Fayaz Ahmad Khan, Mohammad Shafi Ganai, Anoop Singh, Narinder Paul Singh, Shakeel Ul Rahman, Khursheed Ahmad Shah, Mir Altaf Ahmad, Muhammad Rafi Moon, Muzaffar Ali, Mohammad Amin Dar, Muhammad Ashraf Mir, Mohammad Afzal Mir and Gulzar Ahmad Mir.
The order also identifies Bashir Ahmad Iqbal and Abdul Rashid Sofi as retired employees. It provides for retrospective regularisation of the petitioners from the individual effective dates specified in the schedule, based on their contractual service records.
The government has directed that the petitioners’ positions be appropriately reflected in the seniority lists and that the financial implications be assessed and verified by the concerned DDOs. The benefits will be subject to the applicable rules and the conditions specified in the order.
The sanction is also subject to ratification by the Council of Ministers, in accordance with the advice conveyed by the General Administration Department and the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs on October 11, 2026. It will further remain subject to the outcome of any writ petition or other proceeding pending before a competent court.
