Applicants cannot claim regularization due to unauthorized prior employment, as policy decisions nullified their claims, reaffirming legal precedents on public employment.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The applicants have filed the present Original Applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -

a) “Direction to the respondents to regularise services of 4 the petitioners with all consequential benefits till date, on the analogy of those who have already been regularised by the respondents, as petitioners have completed more than 10 years of their services in the department.

b) Commanding and Directing the respondents not to disengage the petitioners in any manner until their services are not regularised and not to withheld their wages the petitioners are regularized.

c) With a further prayer for issuance of any other order, or direction whatsoever the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case..”

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings, are as follows: -

a) That the petitioners have been appointed as daily wagers/casual labourers in the respondent’s establishment and have been continuously working for more than ten years till date. Even though there are several petitioners, their grievance is identical, therefore they have preferred the present petition jointly. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite having put in more than a decade of continuous service, they have not been regularized, whereas juniors and similarly situated persons have been regularized by the respondents, thereby ignoring their rightful and genuine claim. The petitioners have served their precious years of life in the Military Farm, Jammu and at this stage there are no job opportunities left out for them elsewhere. The petitioners have time and again approached the respondents by filing several representations but to no avail.

b) That a copy of the seniority list of labourers of Military Farm, Jammu dated 23.02.2017 depicts the names of the petitioners (Annexure A). The respondents by adopting a pick and choose policy have regularized services of some juniors and undeserving candidates while depriving the petitioners, which amounts to violation of the equality clause enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as the doctrine of social justice. The petitioners rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7423–7429 of 2018), wherein it was held that long-serving daily wagers should not be ignored while regularizing juniors.

c) That some similarly situated employees had earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, seeking regularization. Their O.A. was dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2016. Aggrieved thereof, they approached the Hon’ble High Court of J&K at Jammu by way of SWP No. 988/2017, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 18.05.2017, whereby the Hon’ble Court quashed the order of the Tribunal and directed the respondents to consider the cases of those petitioners who fall under paragraph 44 of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) for one- time regularization, with a further direction that the said exercise be completed within three months (Annexure B). Despite knowledge of this order, the respondents failed to comply and the matter was again taken before the High Court in Contempt Petition CPSW No. 621/2017. In reply, the respondents filed a compliance report and passed order No. 40084/MF/E/Devinder Kumar dated 10.03.2018 rejecting the claims without justification (Annexure C).

d) That some other s