Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Om Singh vs Education on 10 December, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH
Transfer Application No. 233/2023
(SWP No. 2612/2015)
Date of Order: This, the 10th day of December, 2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Between
1. Om Singh, age 48 years,
S/o Sh. Jodh Ram
R/o Chapperan, Tehsil Pogal Paristhan,
Ukhral, District Ramban.
2. Vikram Singh, age 27 years,
S/o Sh. Shyam Singh
R/o Narthiyal, Tehsil Pogal Paristhan,
Ukhral, District- Ramban.
3. Rajpal Singh, age 26 years,
S/o Sh. Binder Singh
R/o Kunda, Tehsil Pogal Paristhan, Ukhral,
District Ramban.
4. Mashkoor Ahmed, age 34 years,
S/o Shamas-ud-Din Bali
R/o Halwogan, P/o Ramsoo,
Tehsil Pogal Paristhan Ukhral,
District Ramban.
5. Chain Singh, age 40 years,
S/o Sh.Lachman Dass
R/o Badarkote, Tehsil Khari,
District Ramban.
6. Hans Raj, age 30 years,
S/o Sh. Thakur Dass
R/o Dhandrath, Tehsil & District Ramban.
7. Swami Singh, age 30 years, S/o Sh. Punjab Singh
R/o Dhandrath, Tehsil & District Ramban.
T.A. Nos. 233/2023
(SWP No. 2612/2015)
Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
2
8. Rajinder Singh, age 42 years, S/o Sh. Dev Raj
R/o Hellar, Tehsil Rajgarh,
District- Ramban.
.....PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Through Commissioner-Cum-
Secretary, Education Department, Civil Secretariat,
Srinagar/Jammu.
2. Financial Commissioner, (Finance)h Civil Secretariat,
Srinagar/Jammu.
3. Commissioner Secretary, General Administration
Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu.
4. Director, School Education, Jammu.
5. Chief Education Officer, District Ramban.
6. Zonal Education Officer, District Ramban.
......RESPONDENTS
Advocate for applicant(s): Ms. Aruna Thakur
Advocate for respondent(s): Mr. S. Magotra, ld. AAG
ORDER
PER MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):
The SWP/WP(C) No. 2612/2015 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and are now registered and listed as T.A. No. 61/233/2023 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
T.A. Nos. 233/2023(SWP No. 2612/2015) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 3
2. The applicants by this TA have prayed for the following relief(s):
a. Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners against any class IV post in the department of education by relaxing the age criteria prescribed keeping in view the length of service of each of the petitioners.
b. Mandamus not to appoint any person and allow them to join without considering the claims of the petitioners.
c. Not to give effect to the select dated 21.8.2015 without considering the claims of the petitioners.
d. Mandamus since the petitioners are working continuously in the respective institutions as mentioned hereinabove mandamus also is required to be issued respondents that no other person be engaged in place of the petitioners with considering the superior claims of the petitioners.
e. Mandamus to direct the state respondents to consider the claims of the petitioners against posts available in the department additionally.
f. Mandamus directing the state respondents to release minimum wages and the arrears to the petitioners from the date of engagement till date. With further direction that no posts available under rules for direct recruitment be filled up till the petitioners are absorbed permanently.
g. Any other order to protect the interest of the petitioners before Hon'ble Court as deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The facts of the case as projected in the instant TA are as follows:
1. That the petitioners before this Hon'ble Court are persons who were engaged as contingent workers T.A. Nos. 233/2023 (SWP No. 2612/2015) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 4 (sweepers/watermen) in the Education Department in the State of Jammu & Kashmir in the schools. However they have been performing duties not only as mentioned above but additional duties which are otherwise performed by Peons and Chowkidars as well.
2. That the petitioners belong to backward area of District Ramban. On the promise that in lieu of the land Govt.
jobs will be provided, the land was provided by the family of some of the petitioners however the permanent govt. jobs as promised have not been provided till date.
3. That the petitioner No.1 is a matriculate that the Petitioner No.1 was engaged in the year 15-03-2003 in Primary School situated Chappran for remuneration of Rs.200/- paid from march to march and at present is being the same amount of Rs. 200/-. However for the period 2013-14 the petitioner No.1 was paid Rs.320/- from March to March.
4. That the petitioner No.2 is a Middle Pass and was engaged in the year 14-09-2005 in Primary School Narthial which was later upgraded to Middle School for a remuneration of Rs.39/- paid from march to march and at present is being paid Rs.320/- from march to march.
5. That the Petitioner No.3 is a Middle Pass was engaged in May, 2006 in Middle School situated at Kunda Maligam for a remuneration of Rs.200/- paid from march to march and at present is being paid Rs.320/- from march to march. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner No.3 has subsequently passed his matriculation in the year 2013. 7. That the Petitioner No.4 is Middle Pass and was engaged in the year 27-10-1998 in Middle School situated at Halwogan for a remuneration of Rs.185/- paid from march to march and at present is being paid Rs.302/-from March to March.
6. That the Petitioner No.5 is matriculate and was engaged in the year 01-10-2007 in Middle School situated at Badarkote for a remuneration of Rs.50/ paid per month and at present is also being paid Rs.50/- per month.
7. That the Petitioner No.6 is Middle Pass was engaged in the year 04-05-2002 in High School situated at Salli for T.A. Nos. 233/2023 (SWP No. 2612/2015) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 5 remuneration of Rs.10/- paid per month and at present is being paid Rs.20/- per month.
8. That the Petitioner No.7 is Middle Pass and was engaged in the year 2009 in High School situated at Jwagh for a remuneration of Rs. 10/- per month and at present is being paid Rs. 10/- only per month.
9. That the Petitioner No.8 is matriculate and was engaged in the year 01-12-2001 in Middle School situated at Hellar for a remuneration of Rs.80/- in the year 2001- 02 and in the year 2002-03 was paid Rs.70/- and at present is being paid Rs. 100/- per month.
10. That they have been serving the school authorities and protecting the premises from damage in rains and snow.
11. That the family members of the petitioners except petitioner No.8 have provided place/land for construction of the school as also the additional structures. Even when permanent jobs were promised in lieu, till date the petitioners have not been provided against the same.
12. That the Hon'ble Court has also interpreted the word 'living' as not merely living but to live a life of dignity and honour, the State ought to have laid down guidelines even while engaging persons on contingent wages to live a life of dignity and paid them accordingly i.e. atleast the minimum wages. The fact that the persons engaged on contingent basis was considered by the State for regularization of services, it can well be presumed that the state did have the knowledge that the petitioners were working as contingent employees and the amount being paid to them was negligible. If analysed wages received were not sufficient for bare survival especially when a cup of tea costs a minimum of Rs.7/. The petitioners are entitled to a decent living wage to live a life of dignity, however, the state has turned a blind eye to this aspect of the petitioners.
13. That in the year 2008 an SRO 308 of 2008 dated 16- 10-2008 was issued pursuant to which the services of the contingent workers were to be regularised, process for which was initiated by the respondents and lists ordered to be prepared. However, it appears that the committee to regularized the services was constituted more than T.A. Nos. 233/2023 (SWP No. 2612/2015) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 6 once for reasons best known to the respondents. The case of the petitioners and process undertaken for regularisation of the contingent workers for regularisation from district Ramban appears to have reached nowhere even when the documents have been repeatedly asked for and provided to the official respondents.
14. That the official respondents have now issued a list of 61 candidates for adjustment in Jammu province out of which 11 candidates have been shown as selected from district Ramban. A perusal of this would show that the last three candidates whose engagement is reflected as 2008 have been shown to be regularised whereas the petitioners were engaged much earlier in time. Not only this the official respondents from time to time have tried to delay the regularisation of the petitioners one way or the other in order to adjust their blue-eyed persons.
15. That to the knowledge of the petitioners the services of the contingent workers were to be regularised. Even though the petitioners have been working continuously their services have not been regularized till date.
16. That the jobs assigned to the petitioners are not temporary but of a permanent nature as the district is hilly and not all the schools have water supply system and for drinking purposes water has to be fetched from places far such as Middle School Kunda.
17. That to the knowledge of the petitioners after the formation of Ramban District 75 posts were available. however, the correct figure can be ascertained from the records of the official respondents only accordingly they need to be directed to produce the entire record. As of now to the knowledge of the petitioners there are about 66 vacant posts in District Ramban which have to be filled up by the Govt.
18. That the petitioners are performing their duties in addition to those reflecting in the engagement orders and are required to be paid the wages at least commensurate with that of the post i.e. the post of Peon and Chowkidar till such time that those wages are paid at least the minimum wages should be paid to the petitioners.
T.A. Nos. 233/2023(SWP No. 2612/2015) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 7
19. That as if the discrimination against the petitioners were not enough the method adopted by the state agencies even for payment of contingency/local funds is absolutely arbitrary as there is no consistency. While one petitioner gets Rs.300/- per year, the others get a different amount in a different manner i.e. Rs. 10/- per month.
20. That whereas there are 66 posts which have not been filled up in District Ramban the petitioners can therefore be adjusted against the posts as per their qualification and seniority. A communication issued by the Govt of J&K Edu. Dept Civil Sectt. to the Director school Education dated 24. 08. 2011 would show that the petitioners services ought to have been regularised. Not only this they should have been regularised as per seniority. However the last three candidates shown to have been regularised in District Ramban have been engaged in 2008 which is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and seriously prejudices the petitioners.
21. That since only 50% of the Class-IV and Class-VII employees have to be engaged by way of direct recruitment whereas the other 50% to be taken from those already working on contingent basis, a situation may arise that the contingent workers may be in excess of the 50% to be promoted in such a situation the rights of the petitioners for consideration against 50% direct recruitment may also kindly be protected by relaxation of rules of age and qualification, than the rules of last come first go must apply.
4. Respondents have filed their reply wherein they have averred that:
i) That in reply to the contents of the Para No.2 it is submitted that the Petitioner has duty certificate which he claims as appointment Order which has been issued by Master (I/C Headmaster). The fact is that the Duty Certificate which has been issued by the Master to the Petitioner is nullity in the eyes of Law because the concerned Headmaster has no power to issue such type of Orders which the Petitioner claims his Appointment Order i.e. he is not competent to engage any CPW or Local Fund Paid Employee. It is pertinent to mention here that the Zonal Education Officer is competent to issue such type T.A. Nos. 233/2023 (SWP No. 2612/2015) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 8 of orders under the supervision of Higher Authorities such as Chief Education Officer, Director School Education after observing all codal formalities. So far the rest of Para is concerned the Petitioner has been paid or being paid remuneration out of School Local Funds (Annexure-A).
ii) The in reply to the contents of Para No.3 it is humbly submitted that the Petitioner discharges the duties of Sweeper only and the contents of rest of the Para are wrong and incorrect thus vehemently denied.
iii) That in reply to the contents of Para No.4 it is humbly submitted that the contents of the Para are admitted to the extent that in accordance with SRO-308, Dated:-16.10.2008, the department has regularized the CPWs/LFPWs against the 50% quota of the Class-IV vacancies after scrutinizing their documents. The contents of rest of the Para are wrong, incorrect and misleading thus vehemently denied.
iv) That in reply to Para No.5 it is humbly submitted that the department has constituted District Level and Divisional Level Committee for verifying the data pertaining to the said employees and these committees bove rejected the claim of the petitioner as he was not eligible for regularizan due to non availability of valid engagement order. He had been engrend by incompetent persons like I/C Headmaster of Middle School / Primary School. It is not denied that only 11 candidates have been selected from the District Ramban and three candidates have been regularized but it in submitted that they fulfilled the criteria of Selection and regularization as laid down in SRO-
308, Dated: 16.10.2008. So, there is no question of discrimination and partiality with the petitioner. Hence the allegations of the Petitioner made in the Para are vehemently denied.
v) That in reply to the contents of Para No.6 it is humbly submitted that the contents of the Para are based on facts. It is humbly submitted that the list of CPWs/LFPWs were prepared and after preparing the lists the committee verified and securitized the same. Since the petitioner did not possess the requirements as required in the regularization process, therefore, he was not regularized.
vi) That in response to the Para No.8 it is submitted that the claim of the Petitioner is incorrect and baseless and thus denied. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner is discharging only the duties of Sweeper and no agreement in respect of the alleged duties have been signed with the petitioner by the then Master (I/C Headmaster) or the present Master (I/C Headmaster).
T.A. Nos. 233/2023(SWP No. 2612/2015) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 9
vii) That in response to the Para No.9, it is admitted that the Petitioner has right to live a life of dignity and is also sparing a life of dignity. The department has not imposed any additional duties upon the petitioner in any way. So far the other contents of the Para are concerned the CPWs/LPFWs are only paid remuneration out of School Funds available with the school.
viii) That in reply to the contents of Para No.10 it is humbly submitted that the contents of the Para are not based on facts and are wrong thus vehemently denied. It is humbly submitted that since the petitioner has no valid engagement order issued by the competent authority in this behalf hence his case for regularization was rejected by the competent authority.
ix) That in response to the Para No.11, it is submitted that the contended Para are wrong and misleading thus denied. It is humbly submitted consistency in respect of remuneration be maintained for CPWs/LPPWe as it is totally dependent on the number of students enrolled in the school annually. So, there is no question of arbitrariness.
x) That in response to the Para No.12 it is humbly submitted that so far as the number of Posts in concerned, it is a matter of record and for the rest of the Para, it is humbly submitted that only those CPWs/LPFWs who fulfill the conditions as laid down in the SRO-308, Dated:-16.10.2008 and in the communication issued by the Govt. of J&K Education Department, Civil School Education, Jammu the Secretariat, dated:24.08.2011 were selected and regularized and the petitioner does not to Director possess the requisite conditions. It is humbly submitted that there was no pick and choose method, but the CPWs/LFPWs whose documents were found as per the requirement have been regularized as Class IV against the 50% quota of vacancies. Moreover, it is humbly submitted that the guidelines issued by Administrative Department Vide No: Edu/1/227/09 dated:
24.08.2011 is regarding the age and qualification which is applicable to the CPWs/LPFWs for filing up of Class IV vacancies in the Education department who are not eligible for regularization and are eligible for covering under Minimum Wages Act. Hence the age and qualification relaxation as per above communication is not meant for regularization.
xi) That in response to the Para No.13, it is submitted that the contents of the Para are wrong, incorrect and misleading thus vehemently denied. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner does not even possess the basic Office Appointment Order issued by the competent authority so there is no question of other relaxations as laid down in the Order No.454 DSEJ of 2015, dated 21.08.2015. In view of these facts, the claim of the Petitioner is not sustainable.
T.A. Nos. 233/2023(SWP No. 2612/2015) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 10
xii) In response to the contents of the Para No.14, it is submitted that the contents of the Para are wrong and denied. It is humbly submitted that regularization of other candidates is in accordance with rules governing the field. So there is no question of arbitrariness, any illegality on behalf of the department and the same is not bad in any manner. There is no question of uniform treatment to eligible and in eligible CPWs/LFPWs. No rule has been violated but keeping in view the service laws the regularization orders were issued to the eligible CPWs.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of the contentions has vociferously relied upon Judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs Union of India decided on 20.12.2024, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held inter-alia:
"25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or T.A. Nos. 233/2023 (SWP No. 2612/2015) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 11 incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment 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 judgment 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 more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment 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 judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment'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 T.A. Nos. 233/2023 (SWP No. 2612/2015) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 12 organization to legal challenges 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."
6. Heard the parties and gone through the pleadings.
7. It is noted that SRO 308 of 2008 which was issued on 16.10.2008 has a provision which deals with the regularization of contingent worker as 50% of the Class IV employees have to be engaged by way of direct recruitment whereas the other 50% to be taken from those already working on contingent basis, a situation may arise that the contingent workers may be in excess of the 50% to be regularized, in such a situation, the rights of the petitioners for consideration against 50% direct recruitment may also kindly be protected by relaxation of rules of age and qualification at the time of fixing the seniority while regularizing the petitioner as he is already working.
8. In view of the rule enshrined in SRO 308 of 2008 dated 16.10.2008 and judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India(supra), this TA is allowed with the following directions to the respondents:
T.A. Nos. 233/2023(SWP No. 2612/2015) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 13
(a) To regularize the services of the petitioner against Class IV post in the Department of Education by relaxing the age criteria prescribed keeping in view the length of engagement service of the petitioner for purpose of seniority, and, give him appropriate notional seniority.
(b) To release all the consequential benefits and arrears to the petitioner from the date of engagement till date.
9. The above exercise is directed to be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
10. With the above observations and directions, TA is allowed. No costs.
11. Pending M.As, if any, also stand disposed of.
(R.M. JOHRI) (R.S. DOGRA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)
/Sk/
T.A. Nos. 233/2023
(SWP No. 2612/2015)
Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR