Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar

Order Date: 23.10.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Mohammad Maqbool Bhat (through advocates S. A. Makroo and Rahil Noor) vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (through advocate Muzamil Jabeen).
  • Background: Bhat was engaged as a Part‑Time Sweeper on 17.04.1989 alongside colleague Mohammad Jamal Dar. In 1992 the employer issued communications (07.02.1992 and 27.02.1992) deciding on regularisation of Part‑Time Sweepers and age relaxation. Dar was regularised in 1992; Bhat was not and filed writ petition SWP No.891/2004, disposed on 11.03.2005. Bhat was later regularised as Full‑Time Sweeper on 28.02.2013 and confirmed as Sub‑Staff (Full‑Time Sweeper) on 04.12.2013, with prospective effect from 25.09.2013.
  • Petitioner’s Grievance: Bhat submitted a representation on 07.04.2016 seeking his 24 years of service to be counted for seniority, promotion, pension, and monetary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme, arguing he should have been regularised retrospectively from 1995 like Dar. He filed the present writ petition (SWP No.588/2017) seeking quashing of the 04.12.2013 order and retrospective regularisation from 1995.
  • Respondents’ Defence: The respondents argued that Bhat had filed another writ petition (SWP No.1169/2005). An order dated 05.02.2013 directed consideration of his 26.03.2012 representation, leading to his appointment as Full‑Time Sweeper based on seniority. Bhat accepted the appointment on 21.03.2013 and joined duty on 25.03.2013. They contended that Bhat failed the 1996 interview, no vacancy existed earlier, and he could not claim parity with Dar, who qualified through a selection process.
  • Procedural History: The Court had earlier, on 11.03.2005, directed that Bhat’s representation be considered subject to rules and eligibility. Due to non‑availability of a vacancy, an order dated 09.06.2005 communicated that appointment could not be made. Bhat challenged this in SWP No.1169/2005, seeking mandamus and certiorari. The Court disposed of that petition on 07.11.2016, directing reconsideration based on the Board decision for regularisation of Part‑Time Sweepers.
  • Additional Submissions: Bhat’s counsel argued discrimination, citing Dar’s regularisation in July 1992. Respondents’ counsel countered that the 07.02.1992 order only relaxed age criteria; other eligibility criteria, including interview qualification, remained mandatory.

Final Outcome

  • The Court observed that Bhat’s services were already regularised with effect from September 2013 and that he had already been appointed as Full‑Time Sweeper. It held that he could not file multiple petitions for the same relief and that he had concealed material facts, including his earlier writ petition and the 2005 order denying vacancy.
  • The Court found Bhat ineligible for retrospective regularisation because he failed the 1996 interview and no vacancy existed at the relevant time.
  • Consequently, the petition is dismissed as without merit, and any interim direction, if any, shall cease to operate.

Topics: Employment Law, Judicial Decision