Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Territory Of J&K vs Mohd. Parvez S/O Nazir Hussain R/O on 2 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:653-DB
Serial No. 08
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 411/2026
CM No. 979/2026
Caveat No. 2813/2025
Date of pronouncement: 02.03.2026
Date of uploading: 03.03.2026
1. Union Territory of J&K, through its .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Commissioner/Secy. To Govt,
Forest, Environment and Ecology
Deptt., Civil Secretariat, U.T. of J&K
at Jammu.
2. Empowered Committee through its
Chairman Commissioner-cum-
Secretary to Govt., Finance
Department, Civil Secretariat, U.T.
of J&K at Jammu.
3. Director, Department of Social
Forestry, J&K Govt., Talab-Tillo,
Jammu.
4. Regional Director, Department of
Social Forestry, Talab Tillo, Jammu
5. Divisional Forest Officer, Social
Forestry Division Rajouri.
Through: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG
vs
1. Mohd. Parvez S/o Nazir Hussain R/o ..... Respondent(s)
Village Darhal, Chowkiyan Bagh, Tehsil
Darhal, Distt. Rajouri.
2. Rajesh Kumar S/o Som Raj R/o Village
Karian, Tehsil and Distt. Rajouri.
3. Maroof Hussain S/o Wazir Mohd. R/o
Village Ninganar, Tehsil and Distt,
Rajouri.
4. Mohd. Afzal S/o Farooq Alam R/o
Ghambir Mughlan, Tehsil Manjakote,
Distt. Rajouri.
5. Mohd. Aslam S/o Fakir Mohd. R/o Village
Mangalnar, Tehsil Manjakote, Distt.
Rajouri.
6. Mohd. Bashir S/o Atta Ullah R/o Hasptote
Tehsil Thanamandi Distt Rajouri.
7. Ujjagar Singh S/o Amar Nath R/o Village
Gunni Tehsil and District Rajouri.
Page 1 of 5 WP(C) No. 411/2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:653-DB
8. Mandan Lal S/o Nand Lal R/o Village
Panjah Tehsil Kalakote District Rajouri.
9. Bagh Hussain S/o Feroz Din R/o Village
Saroota Tehsil Manjakote District Rajouri.
10. Ab. Qadoos S/o Ismail R/o Village
Dhanore Tehsil and Distt Rajouri.
11. Sham Lal S/o Badri Nath R/o Village
Samkar Tehsil Nowshera Distt. Rajouri.
12. Muneer Hussain S/o Dil Mohd. R/o
Village Katarmal Tehsil Manjakote Distt.
Rajouri.
13. Mohinder Lal S/o Bhagat Ram R/o
Village Chatyari Tehsil Nowshera District
Rajouri.
14. Mohd. Younis S/o Mohd. Hussain, R/o
Katarmal, Tehsil Manjakote, District
Rajouri.
15. Abdul Rehman S/o Said Alam R/o
Village Thanamang Tehsil Darhal District
Rajouri.
Through: Mr. R. K. S. Thakur, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
02.03.2026 Sanjeev Kumar 'J' Caveat No. 2813/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the caveators.
2. With the presence of learned counsel for the caveators, the caveat stands discharged.
WP(C) No. 411/2026
1. Impugned in this petition, filed by the Union Territory of J&K under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an order and judgment dated 04.02.2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu [for short "the Tribunal"] in TA No. Page 2 of 5 WP(C) No. 411/2026 2026:JKLHC-JMU:653-DB 5158/2021 titled "Mohd. Parvez and others Vs. U.T. of J&K and others", whereby the Tribunal has allowed the petition of the respondents and directed the petitioners herein to regularise the services of the respondents from the date, they attained the eligibility for regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994. The respondents have also been held entitled to all consequential benefits.
2. The impugned judgment is challenged by the petitioners on the following grounds:
(i) That the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that all the respondents were engaged as casual labourers and therefore, were not entitled to the benefit of regularisation envisaged under SRO 64 of 1994.
(ii) That the respondent No. 1-Mohd. Parvez was ousted from the daily-wage service on 31.08.2004 and was re-engaged on 15.01.2013 as 'casual labour' in compliance with judgment dated 09.02.2012 passed in SWP No. 1113/2005 and therefore, was not eligible to regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, the issue raised by the petitioners in this petition that the respondents are working as 'casual labourers' and not the daily-rated workers and therefore, are not entitled to the benefit of regularisation, envisaged under SRO 64 of 1994, has been dealt with and decided by this Court in number of judgments, including the latest one i.e. WP(C) No. 410/2026 titled "UT of J&K Vs. Sajjad Page 3 of 5 WP(C) No. 411/2026 2026:JKLHC-JMU:653-DB Ahmed Wani"["2026:JKLHC-JMU:505-DB"] decided on 23.02.2026. It is thus no longer res integra that a person, who performs his full time duties and is paid the wages as per the rates fixed by the Government under Minimum Wages Act and for a pretty long time continuously and without interruption, cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be treated as 'casual labourer'. This Court has deprecated the practice of branding the 'daily-rated workers', who have been working in the department for decades together as 'casual labourers', so as to deprive them of the benefit of regularisation envisaged under SRO 64 of 1994.
4. With regard to respondent No. 1, suffice it to say that the disengagement order of respondent No. 1 dated 31.08.2004 was assailed by respondent No. 1 in SWP No. 1113 of 2005, which was decided by a Bench of this Court on 09.02.2012. From reading of order dated 09.02.2012, it clearly transpires that the Court, having found the disengagement order dated 31.08.2004 bad in the eye of law, quashed the same and directed the petitioners herein to re- engage him. Consequently, by order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the petitioners, he was re-engaged. It also needs to be taken note that on 31.08.2004, when the respondent No. 1 was dis-engaged, he had already completed seven years continuous service as daily-rated worker and had earned right of consideration for regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994. That apart, the disengagement of respondent has already been held bad by this Court and pursuant to the directions Page 4 of 5 WP(C) No. 411/2026 2026:JKLHC-JMU:653-DB issued by a Bench of this Court on 09.02.2012, he already stands engaged and is in the service of the petitioners for the last more than two decades. The gap in service between the dis-engagement and re- engagement of the respondent is solely because of an illegal order passed by the petitioners and therefore, they cannot be permitted to take the benefit of their own wrong.
5. Be that as it may, the case of the respondent No. 1 is not in any manner different from the case of respondent Nos. 2 to 15. All of them are daily-rated workers for all practical purposes and having completed more than seven years of service, after their initial engagement, are entitled to regularisation from the date they have acquired the eligibility for regularisation. The Tribunal has committed no illegality in allowing the petition of the respondents and issuing the directions, which we have taken note of hereinabove.
6. For all these reasons we find no merit in this petition and same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
Jammu
02.03.2026
Vishal Sharma
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Page 5 of 5 WP(C) No. 411/2026