04/03/2026
UT Ladakh Issues Implementation Order Granting Increment & Pay Benefits to Panchayat Accounts Assistants and Similarly Placed Employees | Compliance with CAT Jammu Bench Order Dated 27.12.2024; Applicants Represented by Advocate Mr. Akhail Ahmed Bardi
Leh, Feb 25: The Union Territory Administration of Ladakh has issued a formal implementation order granting service-related benefits to Panchayat Accounts Assistants (PAAs), bringing clarity to their pay and increment status.
The development follows the Tribunal’s Order dated 27.12.2024 in O.A. No. 509/2024 (*Stanzin Namgail & Others vs. UT Ladakh & Others*), wherein the matter of service conditions during probation and entitlement to increments was examined.
As per the government order issued under the authority of the Lieutenant Governor (Administrator), the service conditions of the applicants during the probation period shall be governed by the Jammu & Kashmir Special Recruitment Rules, 2015 (SRO-202), as amended by S.O. 194 dated 17.06.2020.
The Administration has clarified that once the special probationary provisions ceased, the concerned employees would no longer remain under the restrictive clauses of SRO-202 relating to drawal of annual increments and allowances. Thereafter, their service conditions shall be regulated in accordance with the Central Civil Services (CCS) Rules, 1965, entitling them to full pay and admissible allowances.
The order further states that the clarification and grant of notional annual increments shall be treated as full compliance with the directions issued by the Tribunal.
Significantly, the benefit has not been limited only to the applicants of the case. The Administration has extended the same clarification and relief, *mutatis mutandis*, to all other similarly situated employees appointed under SRO-202 whose probation period extended beyond the repeal of the special probationary provisions and who otherwise fall within the scope of the order.
The petitioners in the case were represented by Advocate Mr. Akhail Bardi who argued that denial of increments beyond the special probationary framework was unjustified after the repeal of the restrictive provisions.
The move is seen as a major administrative step ensuring implementation of the court order while safeguarding pay and increment rights of affected employees across the Union Territory.