Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Niaz Ahmed vs D/O Irrigation And Flood Control on 30 December, 2025
:: 1 :: TA 1299/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 1299/2020
Reserved on: - 05.08.2025
Pronounced on: - 30.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. Sh. Niaz Ahmed age 46 years S/o Sh. Gh. Rasool R/o Village
Kastigarh Tehsil Kastigarh District, Doda.
2. Sh. Faqir Chand age 45 years S/o Sh. Bhagat Ranm R/o village
Dhandher Tehsil and District, Doda.
3. Smt. Rajni Devi age 44 years W/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar R/o Pull Doda
Tehsil and District, Doda.
4. Smt. Sharda Devi age 50 years W/o Sh. Naresh Kumar Rio Puil Doda
Tehsil and District, Doda,
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. O P Thakur)
Versus
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Civil Sectt. Jammu.
2. Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Jammu.
3. Superintending Engineer, Irrigation (Hydraulic), Division, Doda
4. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Doda
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. A.A.G.)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 1299/2020
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.577/2018 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.1299/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that writ petition may kindly be accepted by issuing an appropriate writ, direction or order including in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the Government order No. 265-PW (Hyd) of 2016 dated 8-9-2016 whereby the claim of the petitioners regarding regularization on permanent basis has been rejected.
b) A further writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners on permanent basis with effect from 1-7-2000, 1-4-2000, 1-2-2002 and 1-9-2003 with all consequential benefits.
c) A further writ of mandamus and prohibition restraining the respondents from terminating the service of the petitioners on any ground whatsoever. Costs of the petition with such other additional or alternate relief, which this Hon'ble Court may in the facts and circumstances of the case deem fit and proper, be also awarded in favour of the petitioners.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 3 :: TA 1299/2020
a) The applicants are permanent residents of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and citizens of India. They claim protection of their constitutional, statutory and service-related rights guaranteed under law.
b) Applicant No.1, namely Sh. Niaz Ahmed, was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker in the Irrigation and Flood Control Department in June, 1993. Since his initial engagement, he has continuously discharged duties assigned to him at various sites and offices under the control of the department, without any break whatsoever. His engagement, continuity of service and satisfactory conduct stand duly certified by the departmental authorities, namely the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer.
c) Applicant No.2, Sh. Faqir Chand, was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker in March, 1993. From the date of his first engagement, he has remained in continuous service, performing duties assigned by the department at different places, without interruption. His engagement and uninterrupted service are also duly certified by respondents No.3 and 4.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA 1299/2020
d) Applicant No.3, Smt. Rajni Devi, was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker in January, 1995. She has continuously worked since then and was assigned duties of Receipt and Dispatch Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer. She possesses matriculation qualification and has rendered satisfactory service throughout.
e) Applicant No.4, Smt. Sharda Devi, was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker in August, 1996. She has continuously worked as a typist in the office of the Executive Engineer without any break and has also been certified to have rendered satisfactory service.
f) All the applicants have been paid wages as admissible to Daily Rated Workers from time to time and continue to be paid as such even as on date. Their long and uninterrupted service has never been disputed at the field level.
g) Claiming entitlement to regularization on completion of seven years of continuous service under SRO-64 of 1994, the applicants initially approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing SWP No. 386/1999. The said writ petition was disposed HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 1299/2020 of on 27.09.2000 with a direction to the respondents to treat the petition as a notice of demand and to consider their cases in the light of observations made in LPA (SW) No. 438/1998.
h) As the said directions were not implemented, the applicants filed Contempt Petition No. 102/2001, which was followed by another writ petition, namely SWP No. 2899/2001, seeking a mandamus for regularization. The said writ petition was disposed of on 04.03.2002 along with a batch of petitions, directing the respondents to consider the applicants' cases for regularization.
i) The respondents challenged the said judgment by filing LPA (SW) No. 115/2002. During the pendency of the appeal, the departmental authorities prepared and signed detailed bio-data and service statements of Applicants No.1 and 2, clearly certifying their initial dates of engagement in 1993 and continuous service thereafter. These documents were taken on record by the High Court vide order dated 02.04.2012.
j) The Division Bench finally disposed of LPA (SW) No. 115/2002 on 25.02.2015, holding that the issue stood HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 1299/2020 conclusively settled by the judgment in State of J&K vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail & Ors., and directed the respondents to consider the applicants' cases for regularization within three months.
k) In compliance thereof, respondents No.3 and 4 furnished complete bio-data, service certificates and recommendations in October, 2015, certifying that all four applicants had been engaged as Daily Rated Workers on their respective dates and had rendered continuous and satisfactory service.
l) These recommendations were forwarded to respondent No.2, who, in turn, vide communication dated 10.12.2015, forwarded the cases to respondent No.1, specifically stating that the applicants were engaged as Daily Rated Workers since 1993, 1993, 1995 and 1996 respectively and requested consideration for regularization.
m) Despite the clear documentary record and recommendations, respondent No.1 issued Government Order No. 265-PW (Hyd) of 2016 dated 08.09.2016, rejecting the claims of the applicants on the sole ground that they were allegedly engaged HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 1299/2020 as casual labourers/seasonal gang coolies and did not fall within the ambit of SRO-64 of 1994.
n) The applicants challenged the said order after liberty was granted by the Division Bench upon closure of contempt proceedings, giving rise to the present Transfer Application.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) At the outset, the respondents raised preliminary objections contending that the impugned Government Order dated 08.09.2016 was passed strictly in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court in SWP No. 2899/2001 and affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA (SW) No. 115/2002.
b) It was asserted that, upon examination of original records and HR vouchers, it was found that the applicants were engaged purely on temporary basis as casual labourers/seasonal gang coolies and not as Daily Rated Workers falling within the purview of SRO-64 of 1994.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 8 :: TA 1299/2020
c) The respondents pleaded that the High Court had only directed
"consideration" of the applicants' cases and not their regularization as a matter of right. In compliance thereof, the competent authority examined the matter and passed a speaking order rejecting the claim, which led to closure of contempt proceedings by the Division Bench.
d) It was further contended that the applicants, being casual/seasonal labourers, cannot claim parity with Daily Rated Workers who were eligible for regularization under SRO-64 of 1994. According to the respondents, the benefit of SRO-64 is confined only to those workers who fulfilled the statutory conditions laid down therein.
e) The respondents emphasized that the Government Order dated 08.09.2016 was passed after due application of mind, in accordance with rules governing regularization, and does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity.
f) With respect to SRO-520 of 2017, the respondents submitted that the said rules provide a separate mechanism for regularization of casual and seasonal labourers after completion HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 1299/2020 of ten years of service, subject to formulation and implementation of a policy by the Government. The applicants, if otherwise eligible, may seek benefit under the said rules at an appropriate stage.
g) On merits, the respondents denied that the applicants had any vested or enforceable right to regularization under SRO-64 of 1994 and reiterated that the impugned order was rightly passed after compliance with judicial directions.
h) Accordingly, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the Transfer Application as being devoid of merit, legally untenable and an abuse of the process of law.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 577/2018, originally filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, which stood transferred to this Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 1299/2020. The applicants assail Government Order No. 265-PW (Hyd) of 2016 dated 08.09.2016, whereby their long-pending claims for regularization were rejected.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 1299/2020
7. The factual matrix of the case is neither in dispute nor res integra. The applicants were engaged in the Irrigation and Flood Control Department on different dates between the years 1993 and 1996. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were engaged in June, 1993 and March, 1993 respectively, while Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 were engaged in January, 1995 and August, 1996. It stands conclusively established on record that all the applicants have rendered continuous service without any break and have been paid wages admissible to Daily Rated Workers from time to time.
8. The continuity of service, dates of engagement and satisfactory conduct of all the applicants have been repeatedly certified by the departmental authorities themselves, namely the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer, who are respondents No. 3 and
4. These certificates were not only issued contemporaneously but were also forwarded through official channels up to respondent No. 1, recommending consideration of the applicants' cases for regularization.
9. The applicants were compelled to approach the Hon'ble High Court as early as in the year 1999 seeking regularization of their services.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 1299/2020 Multiple rounds of litigation followed, including writ petitions, contempt proceedings and Letters Patent Appeals. Ultimately, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, while deciding LPA (SW) No. 115/2002 and connected appeals on 25.02.2015, categorically held that the controversy stood settled by the judgment in State of J&K & Ors. vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail & Ors. and directed the respondents to consider the cases of the applicants for regularization within a stipulated period.
10. In pursuance of the said directions, the departmental authorities at every level certified that the applicants were engaged as Daily Rated Workers and had rendered continuous service since their initial engagement. The Chief Engineer, respondent No. 2, also forwarded the cases to the Government with a clear recommendation for regularization. Despite this unimpeachable record, the impugned Government Order dated 08.09.2016 rejected the claims of the applicants on the solitary ground that they were allegedly engaged as casual labourers/seasonal gang coolies and thus fell outside the ambit of SRO-64 of 1994.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 1299/2020
11. This Tribunal finds that the said conclusion is wholly unsustainable in law and contrary to the material available on record. The distinction between a casual labourer and a Daily Rated Worker has been authoritatively settled by the Division Bench in Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail (supra), wherein it was held that a worker engaged continuously and not occasionally cannot be treated as a casual labourer merely by nomenclature. What is determinative is the nature of engagement and continuity of service, not the label affixed by the employer.
12. In the present case, the respondents' own records, certificates and recommendations unequivocally establish that the applicants were continuously engaged for decades together, performing duties of regular nature and drawing wages as Daily Rated Workers. There is not even a whisper of evidence on record to substantiate the allegation that the applicants were seasonal or casual in nature. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from complete non-application of mind and is based on assumptions unsupported by record.
13. The contention of the respondents that closure of contempt proceedings validates the impugned order is equally misconceived.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 1299/2020 Closure of contempt proceedings does not confer legality upon an otherwise illegal and arbitrary administrative order, nor does it bar judicial scrutiny of such order on merits.
14. The reliance placed by the respondents on SRO-520 of 2017 is also misplaced. The applicants' entitlement flows from SRO-64 of 1994 read with Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001, which extended the cut-off date up to 06.11.2001. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 squarely fall within the original framework of SRO-64, while Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are fully covered by the extended cut-off, as conclusively held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing Civil Appeal Nos. 9298- 99 of 2003.
15. The Tribunal is also constrained to observe that the applicants have been made to litigate for more than three decades for enforcement of a right which stood settled long ago by judicial pronouncements. Such prolonged denial of regularization, despite repeated judicial directions and departmental recommendations, offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and strikes at the very root of fairness in public employment.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 1299/2020
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal holds that Government Order No. 265-PW (Hyd) of 2016 dated 08.09.2016 is arbitrary, non-reasoned, contrary to record and violative of settled law, and therefore cannot be sustained.
17. Consequently, the Transfer Application is allowed in the following terms:
a) Government Order No. 265-PW (Hyd) of 2016 dated 08.09.2016 is quashed.
b) The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the applicants as under:
Applicant No.1 w.e.f. 01.07.2000, Applicant No.2 w.e.f. 01.04.2000, Applicant No.3 w.e.f. 01.02.2002, Applicant No.4 w.e.f. 01.09.2003, being the dates on which each of them completed seven years of continuous service.
c) The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including fixation of pay, seniority and pensionary benefits only without any monetary benefits.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 1299/2020
d) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
e) No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV