Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Shahnaz vs Health And Medical Education ... on 9 February, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 264/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 264/2025
Reserved on: - 14.10.2025
Pronounced on: - 09.02.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. Shahnaz, age 36 years W/o Liyaqat Ali R/o Ward No. 1, House no.
50, Narwal Pain Jammu
2. Sharda, age 40 years W/o Mukhtiar R/o Narwal Pain Jammu Tehsil
and District Janmu
3. Raj Kumari age 44 years W/o Late Sh Om Parkash R/o BhourPind
Chatha Satwari Jammu Tehsil and District Jammu
4. Zeenat, age 41 years W/o Rehmat Ali R/o Nai Basti Jammu Tehsil
and District Jammu
5. Bindu, age 41 years W/o Naseem Akhter R/o Narwal Pain Satwari
Jammu Tehsil & District Jammu.
6. Shabena, age 35 years
W/o Rakk Mohd, R/o Jawahar Nagar Satwari Jammu. Tehsil &
District Jammu.
7. Baby, age 44 years, W/o Saleem, R/o Nai Basti Jammu, Tehsil and
District Jammu.
All petitioners are serving in Health and Medical Education
Department J & K as Safai Karamcharis.
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. KK Pathan)
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 264/2025
Versus
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Commissioner/Secretary to
Govt. Health and Medical Education Department, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu/Srinagar.
2. The Director Health Service Jammu
3. Medical Superintendent Government Hospital Gandhi Nagar
Jammu
4. Chief Medical Officer Jammu.
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, Id. AAG)
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 264/2025
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.1552/17 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.264/2025 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that keeping in view of the submissions made hereinabove and those to be urged at the time of hearing, your Lordships may be pleased to allow I 13 the writ meditation and to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction including one in the nature of:-
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS I. Commanding upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date seven years of services has been completed by the petitioners as Safai Karamcharis on Consolidated basis in Health and Medical Education Department under the Jammu And Kashmir Civil Services Special Provision Act 2010 alongwith all consequential benefits.
II. Further commanding the respondents to pay the wages to the petitioners as per the Minimum Wages Act at par with the similarly situated Safai karamcharis.
III. Further commanding the respondents to relax the age / qualification bar of the petitioners while regularising petitioners.Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA 264/2025 IV. Further commanding the respondents to release the wages to the petitioners regularly without any interruption onwards as the petitioners are continuously working in the department. V. Further commanding the respondents to 1o whnica U consider the representation of the petitioners for their regularisation and enhancement of their wages under Minimum Wages Act. VI. Further commanding the respondents particularly respondent no. 3 to forward the cases of the petitioners to the higher authorities for their regularisation as Safai Karamcharies against class-IV vacancy.
B WRIT OF PROHIBITION Restraining the respondents from discontinuing and dispensing or substituting the services / appointment of the petitioners made on consolidated basis by making another arrangement on the posts which are presently held by the petitioners till the case of the petitioners are considered regularisation on the said posts.
With any other, writ order or directions to which the petitioners are found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -
a) The present Transfer Application bearing T.A. No. 264/2025 has arisen out of SWP No. 1552/2017, which was originally filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and, upon constitution of this Tribunal, stood transferred and registered before this Bench. Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 264/2025
b) The applicants are Safai Karamcharis who claim to have been engaged on consolidated basis during the period ranging from 2002 to 2008 in Government Hospital, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, which falls under the administrative control of the Health and Medical Education Department. The engagements were stated to have been made owing to acute paucity of sanitation staff in the hospital and to ensure smooth functioning of essential hospital services.
c) It is pleaded that at the time of their engagement, the applicants possessed the requisite educational qualifications and eligibility for the post of Safai Karamchari. Copies of their qualification certificates were placed on record. Initially, they were paid a meagre consolidated remuneration of Rs. 500/- per month, which was later enhanced from time to time.
d) According to the applicants, the consolidated wages were eventually enhanced to Rs. 1500/- per month pursuant to Board opinions/orders dated 07.06.2007 and 26.11.2008. However, even after such enhancement, the wages were allegedly not brought at par with the minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act, despite repeated representations. Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 264/2025
e) The applicants have asserted that they were engaged against available vacancies of Class-IV/Safai Karamchari posts, and reliance has been placed upon a communication dated 27.04.2004 to demonstrate existence of vacancies in the department at the relevant time.
f) It is further pleaded that some of the applicants completed seven years of continuous service as early as 2009, while others completed the same by 2015. On completion of the prescribed period, they became entitled to consideration for regularization under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010.
g) Despite fulfilment of the eligibility criteria and availability of vacancies, the respondents allegedly failed to forward or process the cases of the applicants for regularization. It is claimed that several similarly situated Safai Karamcharis were regularized under the said Act, whereas the applicants were arbitrarily ignored, resulting in discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
h) The applicants further contended that they continued to discharge their duties without any interruption and to the Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 264/2025 satisfaction of their superiors, performing essential sanitation work in the hospital premises. It is pleaded that denial of regularization and payment of minimum wages has caused grave financial hardship, particularly as most applicants belong to economically weaker sections and are approaching or have crossed the upper age limit for regular appointment.
i) Aggrieved by inaction on their representations and apprehending disengagement, the applicants approached the writ court seeking directions for regularization from the date of completion of seven years of service, payment of minimum wages, relaxation of age/qualification bar, and protection against discontinuation of their services.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) At the outset, it was contended that pursuant to an interim order dated 21.06.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the claims of the petitioners were duly examined and rejected vide Order No. DHSJ/Legal/18108-11 dated 14.03.2019. It was submitted Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 264/2025 that in view of the said rejection order, the writ petition had rendered itself infructuous and was not maintainable.
b) The respondents specifically denied that the applicants were ever engaged against any sanctioned or vacant Class-IV post. It was asserted that the applicants were engaged only for sanitation work on need-based arrangement and were paid wages out of the Hospital Development Fund, which is generated through nominal user charges collected from patients.
c) It was further pleaded that subsequently, the sanitation and security services of the hospital were outsourced to private agencies, and the applicants continued to work under those agencies. According to the respondents, the department merely paid overhead charges to such agencies, and the applicants drew their wages from the agencies, not from the government establishment.
d) On the aforesaid premise, the respondents contended that the applicants were never borne on the establishment of Government Hospital, Gandhi Nagar, and therefore, could not claim any right to regularization under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010. Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 264/2025
e) It was further submitted that many of the applicants were engaged after the enactment of the Special Provisions Act, 2010, and thus, even otherwise, were outside the ambit of the said Act. The respondents also pleaded that reliance on SRO- 520 was misconceived, as the applicants were not government employees on the regular or temporary establishment.
f) The respondents categorically denied the existence of any sanctioned vacant posts against which the applicants could be regularized and asserted that engagement through private agencies, after outsourcing of sanitation services, does not confer any enforceable legal right.
g) On these grounds, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the Transfer Application with costs, reserving liberty to file additional pleadings, if so directed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application bearing T.A. No. 264/2025 has arisen out of SWP No. 1552/2017, which stood transferred to this Tribunal upon constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. The applicants, who were Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 264/2025 engaged as Safai Karamcharis on consolidated basis in Government Hospital, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, seek regularisation of their services under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 along with consequential benefits.
7. The undisputed factual position emerging from the record reveals that the applicants were engaged during the period 2002-2008 to perform sanitation duties in the respondent hospital. The engagement orders placed on record demonstrate that the applicants continuously discharged duties of perennial and essential nature. Their services were utilised uninterruptedly for years together and their consolidated remuneration was periodically enhanced by the department itself, which clearly establishes that the engagement was not casual or intermittent in nature.
8. It is also borne out from record that vacancies of Safai Karamcharis/Class-IV posts were available with the department, as reflected from the communication dated 27.04.2004. The respondents have not disputed the existence of sanitation work of permanent nature nor the continuous utilisation of services of the applicants.
9. The applicants completed more than seven years of continuous service well before the cut-off period contemplated under the Jammu and Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 264/2025 Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010. The Act was enacted as a one-time beneficial measure to regularise employees who had rendered long years of service on consolidated, contractual or ad- hoc basis against posts of perennial nature. The applicants, therefore, squarely fall within the zone of consideration under the said Act.
10. A decisive and crucial aspect of the matter is that the names of the applicants were duly recommended by the competent authorities, yet their cases were not finalised. At the same time, juniors and similarly situated Safai Karamcharis were regularised under SRO-520 read with the Special Provisions Act, 2010. This differential treatment has not been explained by the respondents by any cogent or legally sustainable justification.
11. The action of the respondents in regularising juniors while denying the same benefit to seniors is ex facie discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 has categorically held that where an employee has completed the requisite period of service and juniors have been regularised, denial of similar benefit to such employee is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 264/2025
12. The respondents' plea that the applicants were paid wages out of Hospital Development Fund or that sanitation services were subsequently outsourced does not come to their rescue. Once the department itself engaged the applicants, utilised their services continuously for years together and even recommended their cases, it cannot subsequently deny regularisation by taking shelter under outsourcing arrangements. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 has held that the State cannot adopt unfair labour practices and deny legitimate service benefits to employees performing identical duties.
13. The rejection order dated 14.03.2019 relied upon by the respondents does not cure the inherent illegality. A mere administrative rejection cannot override statutory rights nor can it justify discriminatory treatment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3 has held that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality and any State action which is arbitrary must necessarily be struck down as violative of Article 14.
14. The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 is a beneficial legislation and must receive a liberal interpretation to advance its object. Denial of its benefit to the Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 264/2025 applicants, despite fulfillment of eligibility conditions and despite regularisation of juniors, defeats the very purpose of the enactment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 has held that beneficial schemes cannot be implemented selectively or arbitrarily.
15. The principle that similarly situated persons must be treated alike is too well settled to require elaboration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 reiterated that discrimination among equals is impermissible. The applicants, having been recommended and being seniors, could not have been excluded while extending the benefit of regularisation to juniors.
16. This Tribunal is, therefore, of the considered view that the action of the respondents in ignoring the cases of the applicants for regularisation, despite recommendation and despite regularisation of juniors under SRO-520 and the Special Provisions Act, 2010, is arbitrary, discriminatory and legally unsustainable.
17. Accordingly, the Transfer Application is allowed and the respondents are directed as under:
a) The respondents shall regularise the services of the applicants as Safai Karamcharis/Class-IV employees under the Jammu and Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 264/2025 Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 read with SRO-520, in the same manner as juniors and similarly situated employees have been regularised.
b) Such regularisation shall take effect from the date on which their immediate juniors were regularised, with notional seniority and continuity of service.
c) The applicants shall be entitled to consequential service benefits, including fixation of pay and counting of service for pensionary benefits; however, actual monetary benefits shall accrue prospectively from the date of issuance of regularisation orders, unless otherwise admissible under the rules.
d) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
18. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV