Srinagar, Oct 15: The Central Administrative Tribunal’s Srinagar Bench has directed the University of Kashmir to grant notional effect to the appointment of Assistant Professor Rifat John in the Department of Botany from June 4, 2008, and consider the consequential service benefits legally admissible to her, while ruling out monetary benefits for the period before she formally joined the post.

The direction was issued while disposing of Transfer Application No. 109 of 2024 filed by John, who had sought retrospective effect to her appointment and consequential benefits after the University appointed her in November 2011.
John had applied for the post of Lecturer in Botany following an advertisement issued on January 14, 2004, and figured at serial number six in the selection list. Her appointment was initially deferred pending recognition of the equivalence of her postgraduate qualification.
The University’s Equivalence Committee, at its meeting on June 4, 2008, recognised her M.Sc. Environmental Botany degree from Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi, as equivalent to the M.Sc. Botany degree prescribed for the post. However, her appointment was issued only on November 1, 2011.
The applicant had challenged the delay and sought retrospective service benefits, arguing that the impediment relating to her qualification had been removed well before her eventual appointment. Her request for retrospective effect had earlier been rejected by the University.
During the proceedings, counsel for the University submitted that, subject to the applicable rules and regulations and the absence of any other legal impediment, the applicant’s claim could be considered and decided within a time-bound period.
The Tribunal, comprising Judicial Member Justice Ritu Tagore and Administrative Member Prasant Kumar, directed the competent authority to consider and grant notional effect to her appointment from June 4, 2008, and examine the consequential or notional benefits admissible under the applicable rules.
The exercise must be completed within six weeks, and the decision communicated to the applicant thereafter.
The Tribunal, however, expressly clarified that John would not be entitled to salary or other monetary emoluments for the period between June 4, 2008, and her actual joining pursuant to the appointment order dated November 1, 2011. Applying the principle of “no work, no pay”, it confined her claim to legally admissible notional benefits that do not involve monetary payment for that period.
The Tribunal also directed that the University’s communication dated October 21, 2015, rejecting her request, should not be taken into consideration while undertaking the exercise, subject to there being no other legal or factual impediment to granting the benefits admissible under law.
The application was disposed of without any order as to costs.