Engagement as a casual laborer does not confer a right to regularization without meeting specific legal and policy criteria as established by precedent.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The applicant has 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 the petitioner with all consequential benefits till date, on the analogy of those who have already been regularised by the respondents, as petitioner have completed almost 10 years of his services in the department.

b) Commanding and Directing the respondents not to disengage the petitioner in any manner until his services are not regularised and not to withheld his wages till the petitioner is regularised.

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 applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: -

a) The petitioner was appointed as a daily wager/casual labourer in the respondents’ establishment (Military Farm, Jammu) and signed has been continuously working there for about 10 years. Despite repeated representations for regularization of service, his claim has not been considered, whereas several other similarly situated employees, including juniors and ineligible candidates, have been regularized.

b) The petitioner contends that he is entitled to regularization in terms of the principle of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as services of several juniors in Military Farms across Northern Command have already been regularized. However, his case has been ignored without any justification, thereby causing discrimination and arbitrariness.

c) A seniority list dated 28.02.2017 issued by the Officer In-charge, Military Farm Jammu, depicts the petitioner’s name, showing his continuous service. Despite this, the respondents failed to regularize his services, while adopting a pick-and-choose policy in favour of others.

d) The petitioner asserts that many of the employees who were regularized in January 2017 did not even satisfy the eligibility signed conditions. Some were underage (as low as 9–15 years) or overage (29–38 years) at the time of their first engagement; others were lacking basic qualifications or had incomplete service tenure. Lists of such employees have been obtained under RTI replies and annexed, exposing irregularities.

e) Further, several employees were regularized without proper date of birth records, which itself is contrary to recruitment rules, labour laws, and constitutional provisions. Employees who had not even completed the mandatory 240 days per year of service or the requisite 10 years of continuous service (as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi , 2006) were also regularized, while the petitioner’s claim was sidelined.

f) The petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7423–7429 of 2018), wherein denial of regularization in similar circumstances was held arbitrary.

g) It is submitted that some similarly situated persons had approached CAT Chandigarh Bench, whose claims were initially dismissed by order dated 29.09.2016. However, in writ proceedings (SWP No. 988/2017), the High Court of J&K at Jammu quashed the CAT’s order on 18.05.2017, and directed the authorities to consider their cases for one-time regularization in light of Uma Devi (Supra). Despite this, the respondents issued order dated 10.03.2018, rejecting claims without reasons.

h) Aggrieved applicants again approached the CAT in O.A. No. 1375/2018 (Mehar Singh & Ors. vs State) and O.A. No. 860/2019 (Ghanbahadur Bisht & Ors. vs M.O. Defence), wherein notices were issued to respondents. Interim orders also record that several employees of the Military Farms