Sanjeev J
1 The petitioners invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction
vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
throw challenge to an order and judgment dated 27.12.2024 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu
[‘Tribunal’] in OA No. 61/112/2022 titled ‘Baby Tickoo and another vs
UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others’, whereby the Tribunal has
allowed the OA filed by the respondents and directed the petitioners
herein to regularize the services of the respondents in accordance with
SRO 64 of 1994, in light of the observations made in the said
judgment.
2 The impugned judgment is assailed by the petitioners
primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that
the OA filed by the respondents was hit by delay and laches. It is
submitted that the cause of action accrued to the respondents to
approach the Tribunal when they acquired eligibility for regularization
under SRO 64 of 1994, or at least, on the date when their case for
regularisation was rejected by the Empowered Committee. It is further
submitted that the respondents approached the Tribunal only in the year
2022, that too, after their retirement and, therefore, their OA ought to
have been dismissed at the threshold on the ground of delay and laches.
3 Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, would submit that the petitioners may not oppose the
direction issued by the Tribunal to consider the case of respondents for
regularisation, but the respondents cannot be paid the arrears of their
salary beyond the period of three years prior to the filing of the OA
before the Tribunal.