The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, has directed the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to consider the representation of seven power employees seeking regularisation of their pay scales under SRO 149 of 1973. The order underscores the applicability of judicial precedents, including a Supreme Court judgment, in ensuring parity for similarly situated employees.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Seven applicants - employees of the Jammu and Kashmir Power Development Corporation Limited (JKPDCL) - filed an Original Application (OA No. 61/536/2026) before the CAT, Jammu Bench, seeking regularisation of their pay scales under SRO 149 of 1973, dated 07.04.1973. The applicants contended that they were entitled to placement in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000, in line with judgments rendered in similar cases.
Key Facts
SRO 149 of 1973: A government order providing for pay scale regularisation for certain categories of employees.
Judicial Precedents: The applicants relied on a judgment dated 08.05.2017 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in Provisional Power Employees Union v. State of J&K and others (SWP No. 809/2001), which was upheld by the Supreme Court on 04.02.2026 in State of J&K v. Provincial Power Employees Union and Ors (SLP Civil Appeal No. 7992/2022).
Subsequent Orders: The applicants cited multiple judgments, including:
Muzafar Ahmed Mir & Ors v. UT J&K & Ors (OA No. 267/2026, dated 06.04.2026)
Neeraj Gupta v. UT of J&K & Ors (OA No. 61/689/2021, dated 26.04.2021)
Deepak Gupta v. UT of J&K & Ors (OA No. 436/2026, dated 10.04.2026)
Rajeev Arora & Ors v. State of J&K & Ors (SWP No. 1456/2017, dated 07.06.2017)
UT of J&K & Ors v. Farooq Ahmed Zargar & Ors (LPA No. 353/2024, dated 26.02.2026)
Government Order: The applicants also relied on Government Order No. 44-JK(HE) of 2026, dated 10.02.2026.
Procedural History
29.04.2026: Miscellaneous Application No. 570 of 2026 allowed the applicants to join and pursue the OA collectively.
29.04.2026: The CAT disposed of the OA with directions to the respondents to consider the applicants' representation.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought:
Regularisation of their pay scales under SRO 149 of 1973 and placement in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000.
Consideration of their case in light of the judicial precedents cited.
Any other relief deemed appropriate by the Tribunal.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the respondents were legally bound to extend the benefits of SRO 149 of 1973 to the applicants, given that similarly situated employees had already been granted such benefits under judicial directions.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicants
The applicants contended that their case was identical to those already decided by the High Court and the Supreme Court, entitling them to the same relief.
They relied on the judgment dated 08.05.2017 in Provisional Power Employees Union v. State of J&K and others, which was upheld by the Supreme Court on 04.02.2026.
They argued that the respondents had already extended benefits to similarly situated employees, creating a precedent for their entitlement.
For the Respondents
The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, the CAT noted that the respondents were to consider the representation in accordance with law, implying potential objections based on eligibility or legal impediments.
The Court's Analysis
The CAT refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the respondents to treat the application as a representation and decide it in accordance with law. The Tribunal emphasised the following:
The respondents must consider the judgments relied upon by the applicants, particularly the Supreme Court's decision in State of J&K v. Provincial Power Employees Union and Ors.
The respondents were to assess the applicants' eligibility and entitlement, taking into account the fact that similarly situated employees had already been granted the benefits.
If the applicants were found entitled and no legal impediment existed, the respondents were to extend the claimed benefits to them.
"Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the present application as a representation of the applicants and to consider and decide the same in accordance with law."
The Verdict
The CAT disposed of the Original Application with the following directions:
The respondents were to treat the application as a representation and decide it within six weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of the order.
The respondents were to pass a speaking and reasoned order after considering the applicants' eligibility, the judicial precedents, and the benefits already granted to similarly situated employees.
The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
The OA was disposed of along with all connected Miscellaneous Applications, with no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Precedent-Based Entitlement
Judicial Consistency: The order reinforces the principle that employees in similar circumstances must be treated consistently. If benefits have been extended to one set of employees based on judicial directions, others in identical situations are entitled to the same relief.
Burden on Employers: Employers, particularly government departments and public sector undertakings, must ensure that representations for benefits are decided expeditiously and in line with judicial precedents to avoid repeated litigation.
Procedural Compliance
Speaking Orders: The direction to pass a speaking and reasoned order underscores the importance of transparency in administrative decisions. Employers must provide clear justifications for accepting or rejecting claims, particularly when judicial precedents exist.
Timely Disposal: The six-week deadline for deciding the representation highlights the need for prompt action in service matters, failing which employees may approach the Tribunal again.
Practical Takeaways for Practitioners
Reliance on Precedents: When filing similar applications, practitioners should cite all relevant judgments where benefits have been granted to similarly situated employees. This strengthens the case for parity.
Representation as a Tool: Even if the Tribunal does not immediately grant relief, directing the employer to consider the representation can be an effective strategy, particularly when judicial precedents exist.
Follow-Up Actions: If the employer fails to comply with the Tribunal's directions within the stipulated time, practitioners can file contempt or fresh applications to enforce compliance.
