CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (RESERVED)

JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU Hearing through video conferencing Transfer Application No.61/5551/2021 Order reserved on: 14^th day of October, 2025 Pronounced on: - This the 19^th day of November, 2025 HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)

1. Mir Ali (age 40 years)

S/o Hassaem Din R/o Sail-Jagir, Tehsil & District Jammu.

2. Barkat Ali (age 40 years)

S/o Lal Din R/o Khara Madana, Tehsil & District Samba.

3. Ashim Din (age 44 years)

S/o Makndhu Mohd.

R/o Sail-Jagir, Tehsil & District Jammu.

4. Showkat Ali (age 28 years)

S/o Babu Din R/o Sail-jagir, Tehsil & District Jammu.

5. Major Singh (age 41 years)

S/o Sh. Pritam Singh R/o Panjoa, Tehsil & District Jammu.

6. Rajinder Singh (age 41 years)

S/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh, R/o Suruinsar, Tehsil & District Jammu.

....Applicants (Through Advocate: Mr. C.S. Azad)

VERSUS

1. State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Commissioner Secretary to Govt.

Forest Department, J&K Govt., Civil Sectt., Jammu.

2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Complex, Dogra Hall, Jammu.

3. Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu Region.

4. Conservator of Forest East Circle, Forest Complex, Dogra Hall, Jammu.

5. Divisional Forest Officer, Eco Task Force, Jammu.

….Respondents (Through Advocate: Mr. Sudesh Magotra, learned A.A.G.)

O R D E R

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 2333/2010 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/5551/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal. 2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:

“Directions in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners on the analogy of the scheme of SRO-64 of 1994 and Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 read with Government order No. 329-FST of 2007 dated 14-6-2007 to uphold Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further allow the petitioners to remain in the engagements in which they are working for the last 9 to 5 years and are still in the said engagement till their cases are considered for regularization.

AND/OR Any other Additional or Alternate Relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued.”

3. Tersely put, the case of the petitioners is that (a) the petitioners are working as daily rated workers with the respondent No. 5 since the period ranging from 5 to 9 years and are seeking the benefit of regularization from the respondents as similar type of engagements which were made by the respondents even prior to the issuance of SRO-

64 of 1994 have been given the benefit of regularization.

(b) The difference in the case of the petitioners is only the date of engagement. That so far as the benefit of regularization the respondent state itself has been giving this benefit of regularization to such daily rated workers who have been given engagements under some scheme or project. For that matter the petitioners referred to the Government Order No. 329-FST of 2007 dated 14-6-2007. The fixation of the cut off date is an arbitrary act of the respondents and the same can be further cured by giving same benefits to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners constitute the same class with the persons who have been given the benefit of regularization by the respondent state on the basis of their engagements in the years prior to the petitioners.

(c) The petitioners have given their whole youth in making the operations, targets and motives of the Eco Task Force Division a success and now the respondents cannot deny the fruits of the same to the petitioners by denying them the benefit of regularization. In such circumstances if one set of employees have been given the benefit of regularization the same cannot be denied to similarly situated another set of employees like the petitioners working in the same manner and in same circumst