Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1765
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, J, MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, A
Tirath Singh – Appellant
Versus
Supplies And Transport – Respondent
T.A./167/2023
Ms. Meenakshi Slathia, Mr. Raghu Mehta, learned Sr. C.G.S.C
Continuous service for a specified duration entitles a worker to regularization, regardless of employment nomenclature.
Headnote:(A) Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work-Charged Employees (Regularisation) Rules, 1994 - The jurisdiction to adjudicate service disputes was conferred upon this Tribunal following the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir - The petitioner, a Casual Labourer, claimed regularization after completing requisite service days as per Supreme Court judgments. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Employment Law - The court emphasized that continuous service for a specified duration entitles a worker to regularization, irrespective of the nomenclature of their employment. (Paras 10-12)
(C) Judicial Precedent - The court relied on previous judgments establishing that practical experience and continuous service are critical for regularization. (Paras 14-18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was engaged as a Casual Labourer since August 2004, completed over 240 days each year, and sought regularization based on Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 2-5)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal allowed the application, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for regularization from the date of engagement, preserving his service status. (Paras 19-20)
Issues: The main issues included the eligibility for regularization based on continuous service and the implications of employment nomenclature. (Paras 10-12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that continuous service for a sufficient duration warrants regularization, and the distinction between casual and daily-rated workers should not impede this right. (Paras 14-18)
Result: The application is allowed, and the order dated 08.05.2013 is set aside.
ORDER
(Per: Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member)
1. SWP 1434/2013 has been filed by the petitioners in the Hon’ble High Court and after the reorganization of State of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and in view of the Notification No. G.S.R. 267 (E) dated 29.04.2020 read with notification No. G.S.R. 317 (E) dated 28.05.2020 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the list regarding service disputes of the employees of UT of J&K and Ladakh was conferred upon this Tribunal and while considering the said fact, the record of SWP 1434/2013 was ordered to be transferred by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K to this Tribunal and renumbered as Transferred Application No. TA 167/2023.
2. The brief of the case in nutshell as per facts mentioned in TA that the petitioner was appointed as Casual Labourer by the respondents. The petitioner has completed 240 days in a calendar year in every year of his service and as per the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India, has also completed three continuous years and is eligible for conferment of permanent status but the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for his regularization.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants had approached Hon’ble High Court seeking following reliefs.
i. Writ of Certiorari so as to set-aside and quash the order no. 78901/11/Q/ST-12(Civ) dated 08.05.2013 after calling the record from the respondent in the interest of justice.
ii. Writ of Mandamus so as to command and direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner against a permanent post keeping in view his qualification and eligibility which dates back to the year of his engagement i.e August 2004 as the petitioner has to his credit a total service of five years as casual labour having been worked for 246 days in each year of his service in a calendar year and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the interest of justice;
4. The facts and grounds leading to filing of the aforesaid Transferred Application are summarized that the petitioner was appointed as Casual Labourer with the respondent no. 3 and was engaged as such in 281 ASC (Supply) C/O 56 APO and the respondent No. 3 vide its letter No. 0002/Civil/Labour/Q date 21.01.2004 supplied the vacancies of casual labourer to the employment exchange.
5. Further learned counsel for applicant submitted that the petitioner was already registered with employment exchange and having the requisite qualification and as such, the petitioner applied through employment exchange for the post of casual labourer and as the post were already supplied to the employment exchange, the name of petitioner was sponsored by the Deputy Director Employment, Employment Exchange, Rajouri and as such, the petitioner came to be appointed as casual labourer with the respondents. She further stated that the petitioner performed his duties with the respondents continuously and as such in the first year the petitioner attained the credit of service with 240 days in the calendar year and as such, under law became entitled for his regularization against a Group-D post.
6. Learned counsel for applicant stated that the petitioner was performing his duties and in the year 2009, the petitioner had more than five years of service to his credit. The petitioner was also fulfilling the requirement of three years continuous service as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court and as such was required to be regularized but instead the respondent no. 3 did not allow the petitioner to perform his duties and also withheld his salary and further the respondent no. 3 willfully disallowed the petitioner to perform his duties and after 12th Sept. 2009 did not allow the petitioner to perform his duties which is evident from the Muster Roll for the Month of August-September 2009. The respondent no.
