Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Bodh Raj vs General Administrative Department on 9 April, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024
Reserved on 12.03.2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Jammu Bench, Jammu
Hearing through video conferencing
O.A. No. 61/1325/2024
Pronounced on :- This the 09th day of April 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Ms. Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative Member
1. Sh. Bodh Raj, Age 63 years, S/o Sh. Mangat Ram, R/o barola,
Tehsil and District, Udhampur.
2. Sh. Shamsher Singh, Age 60 years, Age 60 years, S/o Sh.
Romal Singh, R/o Dorsi Tehsil and District Kathua.
3. Sh. Ramesh Chad, Age 54 years, S/o Sh. Jagat Ram, R/o
Satyaltaha Chenani Tehsil Chenani District, Udhampur.
4. Sh. Rattan Chand, Age 58 years, S/o Sh. Kaka Ram, R/o Ladhu
Chak, Tehsil Hiranagar, District kathua.
5. Sh. Madan Singh, Age 51 years, S/o Sh. Ram Chand R/o
Sanasar, Tehsil and District Ramban
6. Sh Joginder Nath, Age 56 years, S/o Sh. Kaka Ram, R/o Chack,
Jaffar Tehsil and District, Jammu.
7. Smt. Soma Devi, Age 64 years, W/o Late Sh. Ashok Singh, R/o
Tholara, Tehsil and District Samba..
8. Sh. Daljeet Singh, Age 66 years, S/o late Sh. Duni Singh, R/o
Vijaypur, Tehsil and District Samba.
...Applicants
(Through Advocate: Mr. O P Thakur, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Mr. Gourav
Arora)
Versus
1. UT of J&K through Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt.
General Administration Department, Civil Secretariat, jammu.
2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Finance
Department, Civil Secretariat.
3. Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Forest, Ecology
and Environment Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
4. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, J&K, jammu.
5. Additional Principal Chief Conservatgor of Forests (Central
Circle), Jammu.
6. Chief Conservator of Forest (FCA), Jammu.
7. Chief Conservator for Work and Plan, MFP Project, Jammu-
Kathua, Range, Jammu.
ARUN8. Divisional Forest Officer, MFP Project, Jammu.
ARUN KUMAR
KUMAR 2026.04.09
18:29:09+05'30'
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024
9. Project Officer, MFP Project, Jammu-Kathua Range, Jammu..
...Respondents
(Through Advocate: Mr. Sudesh Magotra, A.A.G.)
ARUN
ARUN KUMAR
KUMAR 2026.04.09
18:29:09+05'30'
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024
ORDER
Per:- Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member The applicants have filed the instant Original Application (in short O.A.) seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) Quashing the Government Order bearing No. 86 JK (FST) of 2024 dated 10-4-2024, issued by respondent No. 3, whereby, the claim of the applicants 1 to 6, husband of applicant No. 7 namely Late Sh. Ashok Singh and applicant No. 8 for regularization as class-IV employees under SRO 64 of 1994 has been rejected, as being unconstitutional, illegal and contrary to law.
b) Directing the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants 1 to 6, husband of applicant No. 7 namely Late Sh. Ashok Singh and applicant No. 8 as class-IV employees under SRO 64 of 1994 with effect from the dates they had completed 7 years of service, while working as daily wagers in the Forest Department, with all consequential benefits i.e arrears of pay, salary, in-situ promotions, pensionary benefits in case of applicants 1,2,7 and 8.
c) Directing the respondents to treat the services of the applicants 1 to 6, husband of applicant No. 7 namely Late Sh. Ashok Singh and applicant No. 8, under the Old Pension Scheme, after regularizing their services with effect from the dates they completed 7 years of service.
d) Directing the respondents to appoint one of the family members of applicant No. 7 on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994 on account of death of husband of applicant No. 7 who died in harness on 16-12-2016."
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the O.A. are that applicants No. 1 to 6, applicant No. 8, and the husband of applicant No. 7 (for convenience all of them are referred to as applicants) were engaged as daily wagers in the Forest Department on various dates between 1992 and 1993. Having completed seven years of continuous service between 1999 and 2000, the applicants became entitled to regularization as Class-IV employees under Rule 8 of SRO 64 of 1994.
ARUN
ARUN KUMAR
KUMAR 2026.04.09
18:29:09+05'30'
:: 4 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024
However, while the respondents regularized similarly circumstanced individuals and juniors in 2004, the applicants were subjected to discriminatory treatment and denied the same benefit.
3. Aggrieved by the inaction, the applicants filed SWP No. 2487 of 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K. Vide judgment dated 20.11.2013, the Hon'ble High Court directed the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants within eight weeks in accordance with the rules and the treatment given to similarly situated candidates. Despite the Hon'ble High Court's order, the respondents did not do anything except issuing inter-se communications between them compelling the applicants to file Contempt Petition No. CCP (S) No. 133/2020, wherein the respondents by way of compliance report stated that in the 3rd meeting of the Empowered Committee held on 02.05.2016, the Empowered Committee found that the applicants were not entitled for regularization under the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994, being engaged as Casual Labourers.
4. It is averred in the O.A. that even, after the aforesaid decision taken by the Empowered Committee, the Respondent No. 5 vide order dated 22.12.2016, ordered that nomenclature of the applicants, termed as daily rated workers/casual labour interchangeably, shall be termed as Daily Rated Worker (DRW) only and recommended the case of the applicants for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. The Hon'ble High Court noted the contradiction between the Forest Department's records, which confirmed them as Daily Rated Workers ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR 2026.04.09 18:29:09+05'30' :: 5 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024 and the Empowered Committee's rejection and directed a fresh consideration. In purported compliance, the respondents issued Government Order No. 86 JK (FST) of 2024 dated 10.04.2024 (hereinafter referred as impugned order), rejecting the claim of the applicants for regularization on baseless grounds. Consequently, on 07.08.2024, the applicants withdrew the contempt petition with liberty to challenge the rejection order, culminating in the filing of the present O.A. to quash the impugned order dated 10.04.2024. It is averred that over the years, applicants No. 1, 2, and 8 attained superannuation, applicants 3 to 6 are still rendering their services and are nearing retirement age.
5. Notices were issued to the respondents, who have filed reply stating therein that in compliance to direction of Hon'ble High Court issued vide order dated 20.11.2013 in SWP No. 2487 of 2013, the cases of the applicants along with others were placed before the Empowered Committee for consideration of their cases for regularization of services. However, the Empowered Committee turned down the cases of the applicants on the ground that the applicants do not fall within the ambit of provisions of SRO-64 of 1994, being engaged as Casual Labourers instead of Daily Rated Workers. It is further stated that applicants filed contempt petition No. CCP (S) No. 133/2020 seeking compliance of order dated 20.11.2013, the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 22.09.2023 directed respondents to file fresh compliance report in compliance to the judgment dated ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR 2026.04.09 18:29:09+05'30' :: 6 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024 20.11.2013 whereby the Hon'ble High Court had directed respondents to accord consideration to the claim of the applicants under SRO 64 of 1994. In compliance to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court the case of the applicants was examined and it came to fore that the applicants were engaged as Casual Labours and they have not completed continuous seven years of service, which is one of the mandatory requirements to be fulfilled in order to be eligible for regularization under the SRO 64 of 1994.
6. It is further stated that SRO-64 of 1994 - the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules, 1994 are applicable only to the Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees. However, the applicants were engaged as Casual Labours, as such, are not entitled for consideration under and in terms of SRO 64 of 1994, therefore, the claim of the applicants for regularization of their services has rightly been rejected vide Government Order No. 85-JK (FST) of 2024 dated 01.04.2024.
7. Mr. O.P. Thakur, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the respondent authorities have failed to accord consideration to the case of the applicants for their regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 and in a discriminatory manner have regularized the services of similarly situated persons, which is violative of Articles 14, 15 & 16 of the Constitution of India. As per learned Sr. Counsel, the respondents cannot deny the benefits of regularization by misinterpreting the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994, ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR 2026.04.09 18:29:09+05'30' :: 7 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024 more so, when there was recommendation in favour of the applicants for their regularization and similarly situated persons already stand regularized. It has further been stated that the applicants were engaged as Daily Rated Workers, prior to the cut off date of 31.03.1994, later extended to 06.11.2001, and are, therefore, entitled for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.
8. It is further argued by learned Sr. Counsel that the respondents have arbitrarily and without application of mind, rejected the cases of the applicants for regularization on the ground they were engaged as casual labourers. He further urged that a casual labour cannot be one who is performing the duties for the last 30 years. In this regard, he has relied on the Division Bench judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail and another 2013 SLJ 74 as well as judgement dated 19.03.2024 of Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of Ghar Singh Vs University of Jammu and others in SWP No. 1611 of 2016 and Ashok Kumar Vs State of J&K 2003 (II) SLJ 475.
9. Learned Sr. counsel further argued that the impugned order dated 10.04.2024 is factually and legally not sustainable, as it rejects the claims of the applicants on one of the grounds of break in service. Elaborating further, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the breaks were nominal and the applicants have rendered continuous service for decades. In the case of applicant No. 1, there is break of 365 days in total service of more than 20 years, there is break of 123 days, in 31 ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR 2026.04.09 18:29:09+05'30' :: 8 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024 years of service of applicant No. 2. Similarly, there is only 31 days break in service of applicant No. 3 and with respective to applicants No. 4, 5 & 6, there is nominal break of 183, 120 and 485 days respectively, out of more than 31 to 32 years of continuous service. In the case of applicant No. 7, there is break of 115 days in 24 years of service and in the case of applicant No. 8, there is no break in service, yet his claim was rejected. As per the learned Sr. Counsel, the minor breaks in case of applicants, cannot render them ineligible for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994.
10. Lastly, it was prayed by learned Sr. Counsel that the applicants are entitled to regularization from the respective dates they completed 7 years of service, along with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, seniority, and in-situ promotions. Consequently, their services must be treated under the Old Pension Scheme, making them eligible for pensionary benefits. Further, the services of applicant No. 7 - Late Ashok Singh, who dedicated 24 years to the department before dying in a road accident on duty in 2016, must be regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2000. Furthermore, as a consequential relief, one of his family members is legally entitled to compassionate appointment under SRO 43.
11. On the other hand, learned A.A.G. appearing for the respondents stated the applicants were initially engaged merely as casual labourers and that too by a non-competent authority. The Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR 2026.04.09 18:29:09+05'30' :: 9 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024 (Regularization) Rules, 1994, notified vide SRO 64 of 1994, strictly apply only to "Daily Rated Workers" (DRWs) or "Work Charged Employees", since the applicants were engaged as Casual Labourers, they do not fall within the ambit and scope of SRO 64 of 1994. He further submitted that pursuant to the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 20.11.2013 in SWP No. 2487/2013, the cases of the applicants were placed before the Empowered Committee, which rightly turned down their cases upon finding that their status was that of Casual Labourers, which legally disqualifies them from claiming benefits exclusively meant for DRWs.
12. Learned A.A.G. further submitted that the applicants miserably failed to fulfill the mandatory eligibility criteria laid down in Rule 4. Specifically, Clause (f) of Rule 4, which mandates that a worker must have completed seven years continuous period of working as Daily Rated Worker or work charged employee and upon fresh examination during the contempt proceedings (CCP(S) No. 133/2020) before the Hon'ble High Court, it came to the fore that 7 out of the 8 applicants had breaks in their service and had not rendered continuous service of seven years. This non-fulfilment of a requisite condition, as per learned A.A.G, renders them ineligible for regularization.
13. Learned A.A.G. further argued that initial engagements of the applicants were made, without following any defined criteria, and also without giving an opportunity to the public at large. While relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR 2026.04.09 18:29:09+05'30' :: 10 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024 State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others (2006), learned A.A.G. argued that it is a settled law that engagements made illegally are void ab-initio. Such illegal appointments do not confer any justiciable or legally enforceable right upon the appointee to claim regularization, as doing so would defeat the very scheme of constitutional public employment and further, no relief can be granted under a scheme viz; SRO 64 of 1994, that is not in force. Lastly, learned A.A.G. prayed that O.A. be dismissed as the claim of the applicants is entirely devoid of merit.
14. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
15. Having heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and perusing the pleadings and documents available on record, we find that three main grounds have been raised by respondents to deny the benefit of regularization under SRO 64 of 1994. Firstly, the applicants were engaged as "Casual Labours" and not Daily Rated Workers and casual labours are not entitled for benefit of regularization under SRO 64 of 1994, secondly, there is break in service of the applicants and thirdly, with the repeal of SRO 64 of 1994, no policy is available to regularize the applicants.
16. In the above backdrop, the core issue arising for consideration of this Tribunal is whether the applicants, who have rendered continuous service spanning over three decades in the Forest Department, can be denied the benefit of regularization under SRO 64 ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR 2026.04.09 18:29:09+05'30' :: 11 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024 of 1994 by branding them as "Casual Labourers", citing nominal breaks in their service and invoking the repeal of the said SRO.
17. The primary ground for rejection of the case of the applicants is that the applicants were engaged as casual labourers and therefore fall outside the purview of SRO 64 of 1994. This finding of the Empowered Committee is factually perverse and legally unsustainable. It is a matter of record that the applicants have continuously discharged their duties for period spanning over 30 years.
18. From the perusal of file, especially Annexure A/4 of O.A. which is a communication dated 06.10.2017 issued by Project Officer, MFP Project, Jammu (Respondent No. 9) addressed to the Conservator of Forests, Central Circle, Srinagar, wherein while referring applicants No. 1 to 6 & 8 and husband of applicant No. 7 as Daily Rated Workers, the Respondent No. 9 requested the Conservator of Forests, Central Circle, Srinagar to approach the higher authorities for regularization of their services with retrospective effect. Similarly, a perusal of Annexure A/5 which is a communication dated 07.12.2017 issued by Conservator of Forests, Central Circle, Jammu addressed to the Additional PCCF/CCF (FCA), (Respondent No. 5) shows that in this communication also, applicants No. 1 to 6 & 8 and husband of applicant No. 7, were referred to as Daily Rated Workers. Along with communication dated 07.12.2017, copy of orders issued by Conservator of Forests, Central Circle, Jammu were also forwarded ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR 2026.04.09 18:29:09+05'30' :: 12 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024 certifying that applicants No. 1 to 6 & 8 and husband of applicant No. 7 were engaged as Daily Rated Workers, prior to ban i.e. 31.01.1994 and were continuously working since the date of engagement except husband of applicant No. 7 - Ashok Singh, who expired on 16.12.2016. However, surprisingly, in Annexure A/7, which is a statement showing engagement in the office of Project Officer, F.P. Project, Forest Department, Jammu, applicants No. 1 to 6 & 8 and husband of applicant No. 7 have been shown as Casual Labourers.
19. Further, order dated 22.12.2016 (Page No. 86 to the O.A.) passed by Conservator of Forests, Central Circle Jammu, explicitly stated that the nomenclature of the applicants, which was being interchangeably used as Daily Rated Workers (DRW) and Casual Labourers, shall be termed strictly as "Daily Rated Workers (DRW)"
only and their cases be processed under SRO 64 of 1994.
20. In so far as, the rejection of cases of applicants No. 1 to 6 & 8 and husband of applicant No. 7 in terms of the impugned order, on the ground, that they were engaged as Casual Labourers is concerned, the same is no longer res integra, as it is settled position of law that an employee, who has rendered long service for several years cannot be said to be a casual labourer so as to deny him the right of regularization, it if otherwise flows from the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994.
21. In Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail's case (supra), the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court had taken up an aspect for consideration, ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR 2026.04.09 18:29:09+05'30' :: 13 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024 which similarly arises in the case in hand, that the, writ petitioners of that case as the applicants in the O.A., in hand, had been engaged as Casual Labourers. The question taken up was "whether they, in effect, were Casual Labourers or under the style of Casual Labourers in effect, they were working as Daily Rated Workers." The Hon'ble High Court after interpreting Rule 2 (b) and (f) of SRO 64, which define "Casual Labourer/Worker" and "Daily Rated Worker" respectively pointed out that the "marking different in between two clauses is that the engagement of Casual Labourer was to be occasional otherwise daily wages payable to the Daily Rated Workers or the Casual Labourers is the same, but Casual Labourer will get daily wages only for such period for which he shall be occasionally engaged whereas, engagement of daily rated workers is not occasional basis. The Hon'ble High Court in regard to the case under consideration held that "Writ Petitioners styled to have been engaged as Casual Labourers, in-effect, were daily rated workers because they were not engaged occasionally. They have been working continuously.
22. In Ghar Singh (supra) case, the petitioner therein who was engaged as Casual Labourer in the year 1997 and was posted as Security Guard in the University of Jammu, was regularized in the month of March 2010. The claim of the petitioner for his regularization was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court with retrospective effect from 01.04.2005 i.e. after seven years of continuous service as Security Guard.
ARUN
ARUN KUMAR
KUMAR 2026.04.09
18:29:09+05'30'
:: 14 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024
23. The Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), has held that any casual labourer, who has continued for a fairly long spell, a presumption would arise that there was a regular need for his services and in such a situation, a person cannot be deprived of right of regularization, which he has earned by serving the Department for more than seven years, on the plea that he was only a Casual Labour and not a daily rated worker entitled to be regularized in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.
24. The second ground for rejection relates to the alleged non- completion of seven years of continuous service due to certain breaks. As per averments made in the O.A., which have not been disputed by the respondents, the applicant No. 1 served for over 20 years with an alleged accumulated break of 365 days. Similarly, other applicants who have served for over 31 to 32 years have been penalized for nominal, un-particularized breaks of 31, 115, 120, 123, 183, and 485 days across their entire service careers. Strikingly, Applicant No. 8 had absolutely no break in service, yet his claim was summarily rejected. Though the respondents have raised this issue with regard to break in service, they have not furnished any specific details or breakup of when these breaks occurred. In our considered view such minor, artificial, or technical breaks scattered over three decades of service, cannot wipe away the continuous nature of their employment. Law is well-settled that minor technical breaks cannot be used as a ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR 2026.04.09 18:29:09+05'30' :: 15 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024 tool to defeat the accrued and legitimate right of an employee to seek regularization under a statutory scheme.
25. The reliance of respondents on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi to contend that illegal/backdoor engagements cannot be regularized, would not help the case of the respondents. This argument is fundamentally flawed in the present context. SRO 64 of 1994 is a specific statutory scheme formulated by the State itself to regularize DRWs engaged prior to 31.03.1994, which was later extended to 2001. The applicants No. 1 to 6 & 8 and husband of applicant No. 7 were engaged prior to this cut-off date. Even Uma Devi judgment permits regularization of irregularly appointed persons who have worked for more than 10 years. Therefore, the respondents cannot take shelter under Uma Devi to defeat a right that crystallized under their own statutory scheme. This objection raised by the respondents for regularization of services of the applicants No. 1 to 6 & 8 and husband of applicant No. 7 also stands answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs Union of India and others reported as 2024 INSC 1034, has held as under:-
"26. While the judgement in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgement aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for ARUN more than ten years, should be considered for ARUN KUMAR KUMAR 2026.04.09 18:29:09+05'30' :: 16 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024 regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgement is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgement's explicit acknowledgement of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgement's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenged and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country."
26. The next contention of the respondents that since, SRO 64 of 1994 is no longer in operation, the applicants cannot be regularized, is also meritless. The right of the applicants to be regularized accrued to them immediately upon the completion of seven years of service i.e. between 1999 and 2000. Accrued and vested rights cannot be extinguished retrospectively by citing subsequent executive instructions. Had the respondents acted fairly and processed the cases in the year 2004, as was done for their counterparts, this situation would not have arisen. The State cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong and delay.
ARUN
ARUN KUMAR
KUMAR 2026.04.09
18:29:09+05'30'
:: 17 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024
27. In the case of UT of J&K and others Vs. Sham Lal and others - WP (C) No. 2083 of 2024, the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, while dealing with a similar controversy has held in para 5 as under:-
"5. So far as repeal of SRO 64 of 1994 by SO 514 of 2023 is concerned, the same would not affect the vested right of regularization which accrued to the respondents immediately on completion of continuous service of 07 years. In the instant case, 07 years continuous service was completed by the respondents much before repeal of SRO 64 of 1994. Both these grounds urged by Mr. Malhotra, learned GA are not tenable in the eye of law and are, thus, rejected."
28. Recently, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case titled K. Narayana Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh others - Writ Petition Nos. 44902, 31806 & 45705 of 2018, has deprecated the practice of engaging temporary workings for long time without regularization and observed in para 15 (b) and (c) as under:-
"(b) In several cases, this Court is noticing that in various departments of the State Government without filing the sanctioned vacancies by following regular selection procedure, engaging the educated and qualified persons on adhoc/outsourcing/contract basis by paying measure remuneration/wages and they are utilizing their services for more than one or two decades. Whenever they sought to regularize their services, the respondents departments are starting raising grounds against them contending that their appointments are not made by following the procedure and they are not appointed against the sanctioned posts. As and when the respondents departments utilizing their services and extracting work for them for more than decades, they are not permitted to contend like that.
(c) It is settled law that as and when the work has been extracted from these petitioners on full time basis, day in and day out, and keeping them as daily rated ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR 2026.04.09 18:29:09+05'30' :: 18 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024 employees is unfair and opposed to good conscience.
These petitioners have accepted such unfair treatment only with a hope that at some point of time their claim for regularization could be considered. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to languish as daily rated employees for indefinite period and be denied of the regular benefits of the Government employees forever. Such scenario does not show the welfare State in good light. Whenever a class of employees like the petitioners herein face unfair situation of being employed on a daily rate basis, denied of all benefits as that of regular employees, but discharging regular duties, such situation would only rob the State of its constitutional obligation to be reasonable to its citizens and provide adequate livelihood to support the sustenance of these petitioners, in furtherance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. After all, any policy of the State has to be measured in terms of how the policies treat the weaker sections of the society. When these petitioners are allowed to be exploited by the authorities by paying them some pittance as daily wages and work has been extracted as that of regular employees, the least the State could do in such situation is to consider the claim for regularization at some point of time. Their cry for regularization cannot be hanging fire, without any positive action in sight at the hands of the State. The idea of welfare State is realized only when the citizens are treated fairly, equally and without any exploitation."
29. It is an undisputed fact that similarly situated persons, who figured in Annexure A/7 along with the applicants, and even juniors engaged around the same time i.e. 1992-1993 as the applicants, were regularized as Class-IV employees by the respondents in the year 2004. The State, being a model employer, cannot be permitted to adopt a pick-and-choose policy. Denying the same benefit to the present applicants violates the fundamental right to equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR 2026.04.09 18:29:09+05'30' :: 19 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024 applicants cannot be made to suffer due to the discriminatory approach of the respondents.
30. In so far as the applicants, who have attained the age of superannuation are concerned, it is clarified that the right to regularization of their services accrued to them after completion of seven years of service and their vested and accrued right for regularization cannot be taken away in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 on the ground that they have reached the age of superannuation. (See UT of J&K and others Vs. Safiya Bi and others - WP (C) No. 2596 of 2025).
31. In the light of the aforesaid detailed discussions and judicial pronouncements, the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicants is found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and legally unsustainable.
32. Accordingly, this O.A. is allowed with the following directions:
i. The impugned Government Order No. 86 JK (FST) of 2024 dated 10.04.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.
ii. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the applicants (Applicants No. 1 to 6 and Applicant No. 8) under the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994, with effect from the respective dates they completed 7 years of continuous service. The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including seniority, in-situ promotions, and arrears of salary from the retrospective date of their regularization.
ARUN
ARUN KUMAR
KUMAR 2026.04.09
18:29:09+05'30'
:: 20 :: O.A. No. 61/1325/2024
iii. Consequently, upon such retrospective regularization, the services of the applicants shall be treated as governed by the Old Pension Scheme, and the applicants who have already superannuated during the pendency of this O.A. shall be granted all admissible pensionary benefits, under rules.
iv. In respect of the husband of Applicant No. 7 (Late Sh.
Ashok Singh), his services shall be regularized posthumously with effect from 01.04.2000. All consequential arrears and death-cum-retirement benefits accrued till his death on 16.12.2016 shall be released in favour of Applicant No. 7, in accordance with Old Pension Scheme. Furthermore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the eligible family member of Late Sh. Ashok Singh for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994, without raising the plea of delay.
33. The respondents shall complete the entire exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
34. No order as to costs.
(Pragya Sahay Saksena) (Sanjeev Gupta)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Arun...
ARUN
ARUN KUMAR
KUMAR 2026.04.09
18:29:09+05'30'