A Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld retrospective regularisation of an employee who served as in-charge Headmaster/ZEPO until retirement but was omitted when similarly situated colleagues, including juniors, were regularised.
Judge / Bench — Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice MA Chowdhary, Judges
His eligibility, seniority and original in-charge promotion were not disputed. The vacancy explanation did not justify selective exclusion from retrospective benefits granted to the comparable group; retirement by the time the regularisation exercise occurred supplied no lawful distinction on these facts. The Government’s petition was dismissed, preserving notional seniority, consequential service benefits, pay refixation and revised retirement benefits as directed by the Tribunal. The decision concerns discriminatory omission from an established regularisation exercise, rather than a universal rule that every in-charge assignment independently confers substantive promotion.
Case — UT of J&K and others v. Abdul Khaliq Ghani · WP(C) No. 3314/2026 · 2026-10-14 · Jammu wing
Advocates appearing — Petitioners — Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG. Respondent — Not named in the judgment/order.