Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12433
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Ram Mohan Johri, A
Sudesh Kumar, Wakil Singh, Rattan Lal, Tilak Raj, Akhtar Parvez – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K through its Commissioner/ Secretary, Department of Forests, Civil Secretariat, Jammu – Respondent
Transfer Application No. 5161/2021 | SWP/WP(C) No. 968/2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Amarvir Manhas vice Mr. B S Manhas
For the Respondents: Mr. Sudesh Magotra, learned A.A.G.
Engagement after the statutory cut-off date disqualifies petitioners for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994.
Headnote:(A) SRO 64 of 1994 - Government Orders No. 640-GAD of 2001 and 1285-GAD of 2011 - Regularization of daily-rated workers - Petitioners engaged post cut-off date of 31.01.1994 - Petitioners challenged rejection of their claim for regularization as Helpers, asserting violation of equality - The court reiterated conditions for regularization under SRO 64 require both pre-cut-off engagement and continuous service, which petitioners failed to meet, leading to dismissal of claims. (Paras 8-14)
(B) Judicial Review - The court examined compliance with prior directions and upheld the administrative order as reasoned based on clear policy - Rejected the argument of parity with previously regularized employees, affirming the need for adherence to statutory criteria over arbitrary interpretations. (Paras 6-13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were engaged as daily wagers in 1994, yet others similarly situated were regularized under SRO 64 based on pre-cut-off engagement, leading to their discrimination claim. The High Court ordered consideration of their claims, but the respondents later found them ineligible due to post-cut-off engagement, concluding their case was not in compliance with legal requirements.
Findings of Court:
The order explaining rejection of claims was valid; the petitioners do not fulfill eligibility conditions under SRO 64.
Issues: Whether petitioners satisfy conditions for regularisation under SRO 64? Did rejection of claims comply with previous court directions? Can petitioners claim parity with those regularised before the cut-off date?
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized strict legal adherence to engagement dates and continuity of service as outlined under governing SROs; arbitrary or partial interpretations were rejected, affirming a legally valid dismissal of claims.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners engaged post cut-off date. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents argue ineligibility based on engagement timelines. (Para 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 3. court examines compliance with prior judgments and established policies. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. regularization conditions strictly adhered to; petitioners do not qualify. (Para 9 , 11 , 13) |
| 5. final ruling: writ petition dismissed. (Para 14) |
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 968/2015 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/5161/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:
a) “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order passed by the respondents dt: 12-03- 15 bearing no. SF 71/2015 forming Annexure D to the writ petition by issuing a writ of certiorari and further direct the respondents 1-4 to appoint the petitioners as helpers in the grade of 2550- 3200 in the department of Social Forestry as has been done in the case of other similarly situated persons by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit from the date when the other persons were absorbed in the said grade i.e. 04-08-06.
b) Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioners to which they are found entitled to during the proceedings of the case along with costs of litigation.”
3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows:
a) The petitioners were engaged as daily wagers by the official respondents in the Social Forestry Division, Jammu during February–March 1994. Petitioner No.1 was engaged in February 1994, whereas the remaining petitioners were engaged in March 1994, as reflected in Annexure-A prepared by respondent No.4. Along with the petitioners, 13 other persons were also engaged during the same period.
b) A note appended to Annexure-A certified that the petitioners, along with others, had completed seven years of continuous service, which was duly verified from muster rolls and engagement records. The names of the petitioners appeared in the said Annexure at serial numbers 3, 18, 31, 16, and 14 respectively. The official respondents thereafter formulated a policy decision for regularization of all daily-rated workers who had completed seven years of continuous service, under SRO 64 of 1994 dated 24.03.1994.
c) The petitioners continued to work uninterruptedly with the Social Forestry Division, Jammu, and remained on the rolls of the department until August 2006, when their services were discontinued. Meanwhile, other similarly situated workers from the same batch were regularized as Helpers in the pay scale of ₹2550–3200 vide Government Order No. 222-FST of 2006 dated 26.04.2006, issued under the said SRO 64.
d) Subsequently, Forest Order No. 40 of 2006 dated 04.08.2006 was issued by respondent No.2, whereby 112 persons from Annexure-A were absorbed and regularized as Helpers in the Social Forestry Department. However, the petitioners, despite being similarly situated and having rendered the same period of service, were left out of the said regularization, prompting them to approach the Hon’ble High Court through writ petitions bearing SWP Nos. 2011/2006, 175/2007, 873/2007, and 1576/2009 on the grounds of discrimination and violation of equality.
e) The Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents to produce the complete original record, which they failed to do despite multiple opportunities. Consequently, by a common judgment dated 10.12.2013, the High Court disposed of all the petitions with a direction to the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in light of the Division Bench judgment reported as 2012 (4) JKJ 1051 (HC) – State of J&K & Ors. vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail & Ors.. The said judgment was based on an earlier Division Bench ruling in Ashok Kumar vs. State & Ors. reported
