Back
2025 Supreme(J&K) 90
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
TASHI RABSTAN CJ. M.A. CHOWDHARY, J.
State (now U.T) of Jammu & Kashmir, through its Commissioner – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar S/O Ram Lal – Respondent
WP(C) No.249 of 2025 CM No.485 of 2025
Decided on : 04-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.S. Nanda, Sr. AAG
For the Respondent:Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Muddassir Zubair, Advocate and Mr. Farhan Mirza, Advocate.
Long-term casual laborers are entitled to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994, regardless of initial classification, emphasizing equal treatment for similar roles.
Headnote:
(A) SRO 64 of 1994 - Regularization of Daily Wagers - The Tribunal directed consideration for regularization of respondents who served over seven years as Daily Wagers, citing their continuous service prior to SRO 64's enactment. (Paras 1-2)
(B) Employment Law - The court emphasized that long-term casual laborers are entitled to regularization, as established in Ashok Kumar vs State of J&K, 2003 (II) SLJ 475. (Paras 7-8)
(C) Employment Rights - The court reiterated principles against exploitative temporary employment practices, highlighting the need for fair treatment of long-serving workers. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
Respondents engaged as Daily Wagers in the Rural Development Department prior to SRO 64's enactment, claiming eligibility for regularization after over seven years of service. Petitioners contested their eligibility based on initial classification as Casual Labourers.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's order for regularization, noting the respondents' long service and lack of distinction from others regularized under SRO 64.
Issues: The main issues were the eligibility for regularization under SRO 64 and the implications of long-term casual employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that long-serving casual laborers cannot be denied regularization based on initial classification, emphasizing the principle of equal treatment for similar roles.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Per Tashi Rabstan,CJ
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu in T.A. No.61/1636/2020, whereby, while allowing the transfer application, the learned Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to accord consideration to the regularization of applicants-respondents herein in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 as they have rendered more than seven years of continuous service as Daily Wagers.
2. The facts, as gathered from the file, are that the respondents herein were engaged as Daily Wagers in the Rural Development Department prior to coming into force SRO 64 of 1994 dated 24.03.1994. It is claimed by them that they are continuously discharging their duties as daily wagers from the date of their engagement. Since they have already completed seven years of continuous service, as such are entitled for their regularization under the said SRO. As the petitioners herein failed to regularize their service, they filed a petition before this Court which came to be transferred to the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 02.05.2024 directed the petitioners herein to accord consideration to the regularization of applicants-respondents herein in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners herein have filed the present petition against the order/judgment of learned Tribunal averring therein the respondents herein were initially engaged as Casual Labourers, as such are not eligible for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival and contentions and also perused the file.
5. Admittedly, in the petition, the petitioners herein have not denied that the respondents herein were engaged in the Rural Development Department prior to coming into force SRO 64 of 1994 nor have denied that all the respondents herein have already completed seven years of continuous service, even as of now they have completed more than 30 years of continuous service. The petitioners-department have also not denied the treasury vouchers, which the respondents herein had placed on record with the petition decided by the learned Tribunal. Even, the petitioners have not denied that the services of number of Daily Wagers, who were engaged prior to coming into force SRO64 of 1994, have already been regularized in terms of the said SRO.
6. The only ground taken by the petitioners herein is that since the respondents herein were initially engaged as Casual Labourers, as such their services cannot be regularized in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.
7. This Court in Ashok Kumar vs State of J&K, 2003 (II) SLJ 475, 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.
8. In the present case, the respondents herein not only were engaged prior to the coming into force SRO 64 of 1994, even as on today they have completed more than 30 years of continuous service. The petitioners herein have also failed to satisfy the Court as to how the cases of respondents herein were different from those persons whose services were regularized in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. In fact, for all intent and purposes, the respondents herein are similarly situated with those persons whose services came to be regularized in terms of the said SRO.
9. While allowing the appeal(s) filed by the workmen and directing the respondent-employer to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing these workmen in case, Civil Appeal No.8157/2024 with Civil Appeal Nos.8158-8179 of 2024, titled as, Shripal vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, decided on 31.01.2025, what is held by
