The court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to retrospective regularization as a Security Guard from 1st April, 2005, based on the completion of seven years of service, despite the delay in raising the issue.

JUDGEMENT

1. A short grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition is that, though, services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 25th March, 2010 with immediate effect, yet in terms of the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994 adopted by the University of Jammu, he was entitled to be regularized immediately after the completion of seven years of service.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leadings to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner came to be engaged as Casual Labourer on 7th July, 1997 and was posted as Security Guard against an available vacant post. The petitioner continued in service for long but was not regularized. The petitioner claims to have represented before the authorities time and again, but there was no positive response from the University authorities. The further case of the petitioner is that he along with thirteen others came to be regularized vide order dated 25th March, 2010. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, his services were regularized as Security Guard and he was placed in the regular pay scale with immediate effect. The petitioner claims that he represented against his regularization with prospective effect and claimed that he was entitled to be regularized in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 immediately on the completion of seven years' continuous service as Security Guard. The petitioner made a representation to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University on 19th July, 2016 claiming his regularization as Security Guard retrospectively w.e.f. 8th July, 2004, when the petitioner completed his seven years' continuous service. The representation of the petitioner was not considered and, therefore, the petitioner filed the instant petition.

3. On being put on notice, the respondent-University has filed objections and has taken a plea that the writ petition filed by the petitioner after six years of the cause of action is highly belated and hit by delay and laches. Apart from taking the aforesaid preliminary objection, the respondent-University has also tried to meet the case of the petitioner on merit. It is submitted that the petitioner was engaged on casual basis in the year 1997 and as per the policy of the University his services were regularized vide order dated 25.03.2010. It is submitted that since the petitioner was not strictly speaking a daily wager but was engaged on casual basis, as such, he was not covered by SRO 64 of 1994. His regularization was, however, made by the University as per its policy decision taken to regularize the daily wagers/casual labourers, who had been working for pretty long time. Reliance is also placed by the respondent-University on the opinion tendered by the Financial Advisor.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized as Security Guard w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 i.e. first day of the financial year next after the petitioner completed seven years continuous service as Security Guard as daily rated worker.

5. Mr. Ajay Abrol, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has seriously objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the same is highly belated and hit by delay and laches. It is submitted that the order impugned was passed in the year 2010 and the first representation agitating the issue was made only in the year 2016 in a run up to the filing of the petition. He would submit that the petitioner accepted the regularization order dated 25th March, 2010 regularizing his services with immediate effect without any objection, protest or demur and, therefore, shall be deemed to have acquiesced in the terms and conditions of the said order. He would further submit that the petitioner raked up the controversy only in the year 2016 for the first time.

6. Indisputably, the petitioner had completed his seven years continuous service rendered by him as Security Guard on 8th July, 2004 and, therefore, acqui