Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Pardeep Kumar vs M/O Defence on 16 March, 2026
:: 1 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
-CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
Reserved on: - 18.12.2025
Pronounced on: - 16.03.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. OA/389/2021
1. Sanjay Kumar, Age 42 years, S/O Sh. Jia Lal, R/O Village
Manpur, Tehsil Nowshera, Post Office Bajhow, District
Rajouri. Pin No. 185151
2. Raj Kumar, Age 44 years, S/O Sh. Late. Sh. Sansar Chand, R/O
Sayal Jattan, Tehsil & District Udhampur. Pin No. 182101.
3. Kewal Krishan, Age 38 years, S/O Sh. Sardar Chand, P.O
Salmerhi, Tehsil & District Udhampur. Pin No. 182101.
4. Babish Kumar, Age-36 years, R/O Village Sayal Jattan
Salmerhi Udhampur, S/O Sh. Dehra Mal, P.O Salmerhi. Pin No.
182101.
5. Sudesh Kumar, Age 33 years, S/O Dehra Mal, R/O Village Sial
Jattar, Salmerhi Udhampur, P.O Salmerhi, Tehsil & District
Udhampur. Pin No. 182101.
6. Subash Chander, Age 43 years, S/O Sh. Hans Raj, R/O Village
Mand, Bikram Galla, Tehsil & District Udhampur. Pin No.
182101.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
7. Raj Kumar, Age 37 years, S/O Sh. Bansi Lal, R/O Salmerhi,
Tehsil & District Udhampur. Pin No. 182101.
8. Sudesh Chand, Age 32 years, S/O Sh. Kunj Lal, R/O Salmeri,
Tehsil & District Udhampur. Pin No. 182101.
9. Som Raj, Age 34 years, S/O Badri Chand, R/O Gandala P.O
Gandala, Tehsil & District Udhampur. Pin No. 182101.
10.Nek Ram, Age 48 years, S/O Sh. Girdhari Lal, R/O Hartayada,
P.O Sumari, Tehsil & District Udhampur, Pin No. 182101.
11.Ramesh Kumar, Age 50 years, S/O Bansi Lal, R/O Surthan, P.O
Sattani, Tehsil & District Udhampur. Pin No. 182101.
12.Kuldeep Kumar, Age 40 years, S/O Shankar Dass, R/O Syal
Jatian, Tehsil & District Udhampur. Pin No. 182101.
13.Sanjay Kumar, Age- 36 years, S/o Late Sh. Ram Lal, R/o
Malhar, Tehsil & District Udhampur. Pin No. 182101.
14.Madan Lal, Age-42 years, R/o Sh. Roop Chand, R/o Village
Chrti, P.O. Chajet, Tehsil Channi, District Udhampur Pin No.
182101.
15.Bal Krishan, Age 30 years, 8/0 Lakhmi Lal, R/0 Salmerhi The
& Dienst Udhampur Pin No. 182101
16.Rinku Kumar, Age 29 years, 8/0 Lakhmi La R/O Salmerhi,
Tehsil & District Udhampur Pin No. 182101.
17.Kewal Krishan, Age 44 years, 8/0 Sh. Munshi Ram, R/O
Malhar Kanti, Tehsil & District Udhampur. Pin No. 182101.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: - Ms. Manpreet Kour, Mr. Rakesh Sharma)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, New Delhi Pin No. 110011
2. Director General, Military Farm Army Head Quarter, 3 Block,
R.K Puram, New Delhi. Pin No. 110011
3. The DDGMF (MF-11. QMG's Branch, IQ of Mol) (Army),
West Bich-III, RK Purnam. New Delhi Pin No 11001
4. Additional Director General, Manpower (Policy & Planning).
MP-4 (Civ) (b), Adjutant General's Branch IHQ MOD (Army),
Wing-II West Block-III RK Puram. New Delhi-110066
5. Director, Military Farm, Headquarter Northern Command, C/O
56 APO. Pin No. 908545
6. Officer Incharge, Military Farm, Udhampur. Pin No. 182101.
7. Khushal Singh, S/o Lt. Sh. Pratap Singh, R/o H.no. 332, W.No.
06, Raipur Satwari, Jammu, 180004.
8. Jagdish Chandra Nainwal, S/o Sh. Lokmani Nainwal, O/o
Director, Military Farm, Headquarter Northern Command, C/O
56 APO. Pin No. 908545
...Respondents.
(By Advocate: - Mr. Raghu Mehta, ld. Sr. CGSC)
2. OA/416/2021
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
1. Pardeep Kumar, Age- 44 years, S/O Sh. Mohan Lal, R/O
Darshan Nagar, Near Radio Station, Nonial, Tehsil Nowshera,
District Rajouri Pin No. 185151
2. Daleep Kumar, Age 41 years, S/O Som Raj. R/O Jhanger,
Tehsil Nowshera, District Rajouri. Pin No. 185151
3. Vijay Kumar, Age 42 years, S/O Sadhu Ram, R/O Ward No.
12, Tehsil Nowshera, District Rajouri. Pin No. 185151
4. SubashChander, Age 45 years, S/O Nathu Ram, R/O Chowkian,
Tehsil Nowshera, District Rajouri. Pin No. 185151
5. VedParkash, Age 45 years, S/O Om Parkash, R/O Ward No. 12,
Tehsil Nowshera, District Rajouri. Pin No. 185151
...Applicant
(By Advocate: - Ms. Manpreet Kour, Mr. Rakesh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, New Delhi. Pin No. 110011
2. Director General, Military Farm Army Head Quarter, 3rd
Block, R.K Puram, New Delhi. Pin No. 110011
3. The DDGMF (MF-1), QMG's Branch, IHQ of MoD (Army),
West Block-III, RK Puram, New Delhi. Pin No. 110011
4. Additional Director General, Manpower (Policy & Planning),
MP-4 (Civ) (b), Adjutant General's Branch IHQ MOD (Army),
Wing-II West Block-III RK Puram, New Delhi-110066
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 5 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
5. Director, Military Farm, Headquarter Northern Command, C/O
56 APO. Pin No. 908545
6. Officer Incharge, Military Farm, Nowshera, District Rajouri.
Pin No. 185151.
7. Khushal Singh, S/o Lt. Sh. Pratap Singh, R/o H.no. 332, W.No.
06, Raipur Satwari, Jammu, 180004.
8. Jagdish Chandra Nainwal, S/o Sh. Lokmani Nainwal, O/o
Director, Military Farm, Headquarter Northern Command, C/O
56 APO. Pin No. 908545
......Respondents.
(By Advocate: - Mr. Raghu Mehta, ld. Sr. CGSC)
1. OA/596/2022
1. Sunil Kumar Age 37 years S/o Sh. Bal Krishan R/o Darshan
Nagar, Tehsil Nowshera, Distt. Rajouri. 18515)
2. Surinder Kumar Age 49 years S/o Sh. Ram Parkash R/o Nonial,
Tehsil Nowshera, Distt. Rajouri. 1855)
3. Ashok Kumar Age 36 year S/o Sh. Joginder Lal R/o Laroka,
Tehsil Nowshera, Distt. Rajouri. 18515
4. Pardeep Kumar Age 40 years S/o Sh. Dev Raj R/o Nonial,
Tehsil Nowshera, Distt. Rajouri. 18515
5. Karpal Singh Age 39 years S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh R/o Nonial,
Tehsil Nowshera, Distt. Rajouri 18515
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 6 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
6. Dharmvir Age 40 years S/o Sh. Rattan Lal R/o Nonial, Tehsil
Nowshera, Distt. Rajouri. 18515
7. Sunil Choudhary Age 24 years S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar R/o
Nonial, Tehsil Nowshera, Distt. Rajouri. 18515
8. Sushil Kumar Age 27 years S/o Sh. Om Parkash R/o Bhajnowa
Tehsil Nowshera Distt. Rajouri, 18515
9. Mukesh Kumar Age 38 years S/o Sh. Asa Ram R/o Ward No.
13, Tehsil Nowshera Distt. Rajouri.18515
10.Mohan Lal Age 34 years S/o Sh. Mukand Lal R/o Bhoajnowa
Tehsil Nowshera Distt. Rajouri.18515
11.Sohan Lal Age 34 years S/o Sh. Mukand Lal R/o Bhoajnowa
Tehsil Nowshera Distt. Rajouri. 185151
12.Suresh Yadav Age 37 years S/o Sh. Sham Dev R/o Village
Bagha, Teh. Sadar, Azamgarh, UP. A/p Nowshera, Distt,
Rajouri.185151
13.Sanjeev Kumar Age 32 years S/o Sh. Inderjeet R/o Manpur
Tehsil Nowshera, Distt. Rajouri. 185151
14.Rakesh Kumar Age 45 years S/o Sh. Kartar Chand R/o
Bhoajnowa Tehsil Nowshera Distt. Rajouri 185151
15.Surinder Kumar Age 41 years S/o Kali Das R/o Donaka Tehsil
Nowshera Distt. Rajouri 185151
16.Puran Chand Age 52 years S/o Sh. Amar Nath R/o Langer
Tehsil Nowshera Distt. Rajouri 185151
17.Mohd. Shakeel Age 41 years S/o Mohd. Sadiq R/o Kotli
Kalaban, Tehsil & Distt. Rajouri. 185151
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 7 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
18.Kamaljeet Singh Age 46 years S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Choki
Tehsil Nowshera Distt. Rajouri 185151
19.Jagdish Kumar Age 54 years S/o Sh. Balkari Ram R/o Darshan
Nagar, Tehsil Nowshera Distt. Rajouri. 185151
20.Chander Parkash Age 53 years S/o Sh. Kartar Chand R/o
Dhanka, Tehsil Nowshera, Distt. Rajouri 18515
21.Deepak Kumar Age 30 years S/o Sh. Sat Pal Sharma R/o
Muradpur, Tehsil and Distt. Rajouri. 185151
22.Ved Parkash Age 56 years S/o Sh. Balwant Raj R/o Bhaojnowa
Tehsil Nowshera Distt. Rajouri. 185151.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: - Ms. Manpreet Kour, Mr. Rakesh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India Through Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of
Defence, North Block, New Delhi. 110011
2. Director General, Military Farms, Army Head Quarter, 3rd
Block, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. 110066
3. Deputy Director General, Military Farms (MF-1) QMG's
Branch, IHQ of MoD (Army), West Block-III, R.K.Puram, New
Delhi. Pin Code: 110066
4. Director, Military Farms, Head Quarters Northern Command,
Udhampur. C/o 56 APO. 908545.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 8 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
5. Head Quarters, 16 Core, C/o 56 APO.908516
6. Head Quarters, 71 Sub-Area, Udhampur. C/o 56 APO. Pin
908516.
7. Adm. Commandant, Station Head Quarter, 71, Sub-Area
Udhampur. C/o 56 APO. Pin 908516.
......Respondents.
(By Advocate: - Mr. Raghu Mehta, ld. Sr. CGSC)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 9 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
1. OA/389/2021
a) "To quash order no. 40084/MF/E/Sanjay Kumar dated 10-
12-2020 issued by Director, Military Farm respondent no. 05 by which the respondent no. 05 has rejected the case of petitioners for regularization of their services, by issuance of writ of Certiorari;
b) To issue directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization on the posts on which the petitioners are performing their duties in the office of respondents since 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005 and to give the effect of regularization retrospectively w.e.f. 2017 from the date the services of similarly situated persons and juniors to the petitioners have been regularized or w.e.f.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022 17-10-2015 when the services of respondent no. 07 Khushal Singh has been regularized and to give similar treatment to the petitioners as is given to the similarly situated persons and juniors to the petitioners and respondent no. 07 and respondent no. 08, by issuance of writ of Mandamus;
c) To issue directions to the respondents to adjust the petitioners in other departments as has been done in case of other employees and similarly situated persons of Military Farm vide order no. 15990/Surplus Adjustment/Dec/2020/MP-4 (Civ) (B) dated 15-12-2020 by extending and implementing retrospectively the benefit of provisions of Office Memorandum issued by respondent vide order no. 51016/2/90-Estt(c) dated 10-09-1993 by which the government has made scheme for grant of temporary status and regularization and to give similarly treatment to the petitioners as is given to other similarly situated persons along with all consequential benefits, by issuance of writ of Mandamus;
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
d) To declare the order no. 40084/MF/E/Sanjay Kumar dated 10-12-2020 issued by Director, Military Farm respondent no. 05 by which the respondent no. 05 has rejected the case of petitioners for regularization of their services, as ultra- virus, unjust, un-constitutional, un-warranted, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and also against the provisions of Principle of Natural Justice by issuance of writ of Mandamus;
2. OA/416/2021 a. To quash order no. 40084/MF/E/NSR dated 10-12-2020 issued by Director, Military Farm respondent no. 05 served on petitioners by respondent no. 06 vide order no. E- 18/SWP/804/17/NSR dated 01-01-2021 by which the respondent no. 05 has rejected the case of petitioners for regularization of their services, by issuance of writ of Certiorari;
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022 b. To issue directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization on the posts on which the petitioners are performing their duties in the office of respondents since 1990, 1991 and 1992 and to give the effect of regularization retrospectively w.e.f. 2017 from the date the services of similarly situated persons and juniors to the petitioners have been regularized or w.e.f. 17-10-2015 when the services of respondent no. 07 Khushal Singh has been regularized and to give similar treatment to the petitioners as is given to the similarly situated persons and juniors to the petitioners and respondent no. 07 and respondent no. 08, by issuance of writ of Mandamus; c. To issue directions to the respondents to adjust the petitioners in other departments as has been done in case of other employees and similarly situated persons of Military Farm vide order no. 15990/Surplus Adjustment/Dec/2020/MP-4 (Civ) (B) dated 15-12-2020 by extending and implementing retrospectively the benefit of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022 provisions of Office Memorandum issued by respondent vide order no. 51016/2/90-Estt(c) dated 10-09-1993 by which the government has made scheme for grant of temporary status and regularization and to give similarly treatment to the petitioners as is given to other similarly situated persons along with all consequential benefits, by issuance of writ of Mandamus;
d. To declare the order no. 40084/MF/E/NSR dated 10-12- 2020 issued by Director, Military Farm respondent no. 05 served on petitioners by respondent no. 06 vide order no. 18/SWP/804/17/NSR dated 01-01-2021 by which the respondent no. 05 has rejected the case of petitioners for regularization of their services, as ultra-virus, unjust, un- constitutional, un-warranted, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and also against the provisions of Principle of Natural Justice by issuance of writ of Mandamus;
3. OA/596/2022 HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022 a. Quash and set aside order of respondent No.4 bearing No. 40084/MF/E/Sunil Kumar dated 29.05.2021 vide which the cases of applicants for regularization of their services on Group D posts in the formation or any other Central Govt. Deptt. has been rejected mechanically and that being so, the order on the face of it is patently illegal, harsh and arbitrary as well as violative of equality clause of the Constitution.
b. Direct the respondents to confer temporary status on each applicant and thereafter regularize their services in any other farm or any other Central Govt. Deptt. which had already been applied to the cases of their juniors. c. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and consider proper under the given facts and circumstances may please also be passed in favour of the applicants and against the respondents.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The applicants in the present batch of Original Applications were engaged at different points of time as Casual Labourers in various Military Farms situated at Udhampur and Nowshera under the Ministry of Defence. The engagements of the applicants date back to different years ranging approximately from 1990 to 2005, and since their initial engagement they claim to have continuously discharged duties assigned to them by the respondents.
b) According to the applicants, they were engaged against work of regular and perennial nature and continued to serve the department uninterruptedly for long durations extending from 12 years to more than 27 years. Their names were reflected in the seniority rolls prepared by the respective Military Farms and forwarded to higher authorities, particularly through communications issued in the years 2016 and 2017, wherein details of casual labourers who had completed more than ten HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022 years of service were submitted for consideration at Command Headquarters level. The applicants assert that these official communications themselves acknowledge their continuous engagement and performance of duties.
c) It is pleaded that wages were initially paid through cheques and subsequently credited into their bank accounts, which according to the applicants establishes continuity of service. Certain applicants were also issued certificates by the Officer-in-Charge certifying performance of specific duties such as Driver, Hair Dresser and other farm-related functions, demonstrating that they were entrusted with responsibilities of regular nature.
d) The applicants rely upon various Government policies governing casual labourers, particularly:
Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993 providing for conferment of temporary status and eventual regularization of casual labourers completing requisite service;
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022 CPRO 10 of 1968 and subsequent departmental instructions prescribing regularization of non-industrial casual employees completing prescribed days of service; Government communications dated 07.06.1988, 31.01.1991 and 30.07.1998 laying down guidelines for regularization after satisfactory service;
Policy instructions requiring consideration of eligible casual labourers on the basis of command seniority.
e) The applicants contend that they fulfilled all eligibility conditions, including rendering more than 240 days of service annually and long continuous engagement spanning decades. Despite this, their cases were allegedly ignored while similarly situated persons and even juniors were regularized.
f) It is specifically pleaded that certain individuals, including private respondents, who were engaged much later, including in the years 2008 and even 2012, were regularized and appointed as Farm Hands, whereas the applicants were denied similar benefit. Information obtained under the RTI Act allegedly HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022 revealed that several casual labourers were regularized with effect from January 2017 despite shorter periods of service.
g) The applicants had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of writ petitions in 2017, wherein interim protection directing maintenance of status quo was granted. Upon establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, the writ petitions stood transferred and were disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the applicants' cases in accordance with existing policies governing contractual or daily wage employees.
h) Pursuant thereto, the respondents passed orders dated 10.12.2020 (and subsequent similar orders in connected matters) rejecting the claims of the applicants for regularization primarily on the ground that Military Farms were in an advanced stage of closure and no scope remained for absorption or continuation of casual labourers.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 19 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
i) Aggrieved of the rejection orders, the applicants have filed the present Original Applications seeking quashing of the rejection orders and issuance of directions for:
grant of temporary status, regularization of services retrospectively from the date juniors were regularized, adjustment in other Government departments, and extension of parity with similarly situated employees.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have contested the Original Applications by filing a common reply resisting the claims of the applicants.
b) At the outset, the respondents submit that the applicants were never appointed against sanctioned posts through any regular recruitment process and were engaged purely as casual labourers on need-based and temporary arrangements depending upon availability of work in Military Farms. Their HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 20 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022 engagement did not confer any legal right to claim regular appointment or absorption in Government service.
c) It is stated that Military Farms functioned as specialized establishments under the Army and, pursuant to policy decisions taken by the Government of India, the Military Farm Organization was ordered to be progressively closed.
Consequent upon this decision, designated work was handed over to other stakeholders and only minimal residual staff was retained temporarily for completion of closure formalities.
d) The respondents submit that because of the impending closure:
no new regular posts existed, no recruitment process was permissible, and absorption of casual labourers was administratively infeasible.
e) It is further contended that regularization is not a matter of right and can only be granted subject to availability of sanctioned vacancies and compliance with recruitment rules. The HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 21 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022 applicants, being casual labourers, cannot claim parity with regularly appointed employees.
f) The respondents deny allegations of discrimination and assert that cases of other individuals cited by the applicants were decided under different factual and legal circumstances, including implementation of specific judicial orders or administrative requirements prevailing at the relevant time.
Such isolated instances, according to the respondents, cannot create a binding precedent or confer enforceable rights upon the applicants.
g) The respondents also submit that the directions earlier issued by the Tribunal were duly complied with, and the applicants' cases were considered in accordance with existing policy. Upon such consideration, competent authority concluded that due to closure of Military Farms and absence of posts, no scope existed either for conferment of temporary status or regularization.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 22 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
h) It is specifically pleaded that long continuation as casual labourer does not automatically entitle an individual to regularization, particularly in view of settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that regular appointment must follow prescribed recruitment procedures and cannot be claimed merely on the basis of length of service.
i) The rejection orders dated 10.12.2020 and related communications are therefore stated to be reasoned, lawful and passed in administrative necessity arising from organizational closure. The respondents accordingly pray for dismissal of the Original Applications.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. These three OAs have been filed by different sets of applicants, but the core grievance and reliefs are substantially identical. The applicants assail the rejection orders issued by the Military Farms authorities whereby their requests for temporary status/regularization and/or absorption/adjustment were declined.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 23 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022 In OA No. 389/2021 the impugned order is No. 40084/MF/E/Sanjay Kumar dated 10.12.2020; in OA No. 416/2021 the impugned order is No. 40084/MF/E/NSR dated 10.12.2020; and in OA No. 596/2022 the impugned order is No. 40084/MF/E/Sunil Kumar dated 29.05.2021.
6. The applicants, apart from quashing of the above rejection orders, pray for directions to the respondents to (i) confer temporary status under the OM dated 10.09.1993; (ii) regularize them, including with retrospective effect from 2017/2015 when some others were regularized; and (iii) adjust/absorb them in other departments, relying inter alia on a surplus adjustment order dated 15.12.2020.
7. The applicants assert that they were engaged as casual labourers/daily wagers in Military Farms at different points of time. In OA No. 389/2021, they plead engagement in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005, and rely upon forwarding of seniority roll/letter dated 29.05.2017 indicating that casual labourers who had completed 10 years or more were being sent to higher headquarters.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 24 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
8. They allege that similarly situated persons/juniors were regularized/adjusted, while their claims were rejected on the ground that the Military Farms were in an advanced stage of closure. They particularly plead a case of regularization of Khushal Singh (allegedly in 2015) and Jagdish Chandra Nainwal (engaged in 2008, regularized in 2019), alleging arbitrary "pick and choose".
9. The respondents contest the claim, primarily pleading that the applicants were engaged only on job/need basis, temporarily, not against any sanctioned post, and hence cannot claim temporary status/regularization under OM dated 10.09.1993. They assert that the matter involves the doctrine that the law does not compel performance of an impossibility and rely on the speaking order dated 10.12.2020 rejecting the claim.
10. During hearing, it is not disputed that the controversy raised in these OAs is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 219/2020, wherein a similar set of Military Farm casual labourers sought regularization on parity with those regularized in the 2017 exercise, and also assailed rejection of their claim.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 25 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022
11. In OA No. 219/2020, the Tribunal crystallized the determination as (i) whether the rejection order was illegal/arbitrary; and (ii) whether casual/daily-wage workers were entitled to regularization on long service or parity with those regularized.
12. This Tribunal held that the Hon'ble High Court's direction there was to consider the applicants under the one-time window contemplated in Uma Devi, but the case had to stand on merits of the speaking order.
13. On merits, OA No. 219/2020 holds, in substance, that: (a) the Military Farms were ordered to be closed as a policy decision; (b) engagement was intermittent/need-based without advertisement/employment- exchange sponsorship and not against sanctioned posts; (c) regularization cannot be directed in absence of sanctioned posts/vacancies; and (d) mere length of service does not create a right to regularization.
14. It further holds that claims of discrimination based on the 2017 exercise do not assist, as parity cannot be claimed to replicate an alleged illegality; the 2017 regularization was undertaken on Board of Officers' recommendations and complaints were subject matter of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 26 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022 scrutiny (Court of Inquiry), and RTI-related discrepancies were explained/typographical. The OA was dismissed with no order as to costs.
15. Having considered the pleadings and the nature of reliefs claimed, this Tribunal finds that the present OAs are factually and legally indistinguishable from OA No. 219/2020 in all material aspects. The applicants here also admit engagement as casual labourers/job-basis workers, seek regularization and parity with others, and challenge rejection orders that record the same foundational reasons--namely, closure policy and absence of sanctioned posts/vacancies.
16. Once it is found--on the applicants' own case and the respondents' stand--that the engagement was not against sanctioned posts and the establishment is under closure/has been closed as a policy decision, the Tribunal cannot issue a mandamus to create posts, revive a dying cadre, or compel absorption in another establishment. This is precisely the ratio of OA No. 219/2020.
17. The argument of parity with persons regularized earlier also cannot advance the applicants' case. OA No. 219/2020 has already answered HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 27 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022 that parity cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality/irregularity ("negative equality"), and in any event the 2017 regularization exercise was undertaken through a Board process and the very grievances about that exercise were stated to be under scrutiny.
18. Equally, reliance upon the OM dated 10.09.1993 for temporary status/regularization does not automatically confer enforceable right in the absence of the fundamental preconditions emphasized in OA No. 219/2020, namely availability of sanctioned posts/vacancies and lawful mode of appointment.
19. The applicants' reference to surplus adjustment/absorption in other departments also cannot be granted as a matter of right through judicial direction, when the applicants were never regular employees holding any sanctioned post and the Tribunal cannot step into executive manpower planning. This aspect too is directly covered by the reasoning in OA No. 219/2020.
20. In view of the above discussion, and the binding force of the coordinate Bench decision in OA No. 219/2020, these OAs do not warrant interference with the impugned rejection orders. The claims HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 28 ::O.A. No. 389/2021 & 416/2021 & 596/2022 for temporary status/regularization/adjustment are not legally enforceable on the facts pleaded and in the face of the closure policy and absence of sanctioned vacancies/posts.
21. Accordingly, OA No. 389/2021, OA No. 416/2021 and OA No. 596/2022 are dismissed, being covered by the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 219/2020.
22. There shall be no order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit /
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV