Waryam Singh vs State of Jammu & Kashmir - 2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1454

Headnote:(A) Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 - Section 5, proviso (i) - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - SRO 400 of 2009 - SRO 64 of 1994 - Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 - Doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel - Regularisation of adhoc employees - An employee who completed seven years of continuous adhoc service prior to the cut-off date of 01.01.2010 and whose regularisation was delayed due to administrative inaction cannot be subjected to the New Pension Scheme under SRO 400 of 2009. The proviso to Section 5 of the 2010 Act must be read prospectively and cannot extinguish rights that had already accrued under an existing policy. (Paras 9-15)

(B) Regularisation - Right to fair consideration - While there is no fundamental right to regularization, there is a constitutional right to fair consideration when a policy for regularization exists - The State cannot take advantage of its own lapse or delay. (Paras 9, 11)

(C) Penalty - Placing an employee with nearly 20 years of continuous service on probation is wholly arbitrary, irrational, and contrary to service jurisprudence. (Para 13)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, Waryam Singh, was appointed as Driver on adhoc basis on 04.01.1993. He completed seven years of continuous service by the year 2000. Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 provided for regularisation of adhoc employees on completion of seven years of service. The process was initiated in his department in 2002-03. Several similarly situated employees were regularised between 2001 and 2008, but the applicant's case remained pending. He was ultimately regularised only on 20.09.2012 under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 and subjected to SRO 400 of 2009, thereby depriving him of Old Pension Scheme benefits.

Findings of Court:
The applicant was entitled to regularization on completion of seven years of service. The denial thereof was due to administrative delay. Application of SRO 400 of 2009 to the applicant is unsustainable. The impugned order suffers from arbitrariness, discrimination, and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant, having completed seven years of adhoc service prior to 01.01.2010, was entitled to regularization under Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001, and whether the proviso to Section 5 of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 could be applied to defeat accrued rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once an employee completes the requisite qualifying service and the department initiates the process for regularization, a vested and enforceable right to consideration accrues. The State cannot defeat such right through its own delay. The cut-off date under SRO 400 cannot be pressed into service to the prejudice of an employee who was entitled to regularization prior to that date but was delayed due to no fault of his own.

Result: Transfer Application allowed. Directions issued to treat applicant as regularized on notional basis from the year 2000, governed by Old Pension Scheme, and entitled to consequential service benefits.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Adhoc employee — Regularization delayed — Prospective regularization under Act — Denial of old pension — Challenge under Articles 14 and 16. (Para 2 , 3 , 8 )

2. Applicant claims entitlement under prior policy; respondents assert regularization under later Act and prospective effect only. (Para 3 , 4 )

3. Transfer application allowed; notional regularization from date of eligibility; old pension scheme applied; consequential benefits directed. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )

4. Whether an adhoc employee who completed seven years of service acquired a right to consideration under the existing regularization policy?

Yes. Once a policy for regularization exists, a vested and enforceable right to fair consideration accrues in favour of the eligible employee. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )

5. Can the State benefit from its own administrative delay to deny regularization that was due earlier?

No. The State cannot take advantage of its own inaction or lapse to defeat accrued rights of an employee. (Para 11 , 12 )

6. Can a cut-off date under a new pension scheme be applied to an employee who was entitled to regularization before that date?

No. Where entitlement crystallised before the cut-off date, applying it to the employee's prejudice due to State delay is unsustainable. (Para 12 , 13 )

7. Is placing an employee on probation after nearly twenty years of continuous service arbitrary?

Yes. Probation after decades of service is wholly arbitrary, irrational, and contrary to service jurisprudence. (Para 13 )

8. Can a proviso in a regularization Act retrospectively extinguish rights that had already accrued under a prior policy?

No. The proviso must be read prospectively and reasonably; it cannot defeat crystallised rights or legitimate expectations. (Para 14 )

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.2170/2018 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.3675/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

a) Writ of certiorari for quashment of proviso (i) to sub section 5 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Proviso NS) Act, 2010 dated 29-04-10, which provides that regularization of eligible Adhoc, contractual or consolidated appointees shall have the effect only from the date of such regularization irrespective of the fact that such appointees may have rendered more than 7 years of service before the commencement of the aforesaid Act, adversely effecting and abridging the legal and constitutional rights of the petitioner for regularization of his services from the date he had completed 7 years of service or immediately thereafter as adhoc employee but whose services has been regularized w.e.f. 20-09-2012 vide Govt. order No. 569-HME of 2012 dated 20-09-2012 ignoring 19 years of regular services of the petitioner rendered to the respondent/ state being illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary, resulting in the abridgment and violation of legal and constitutional rights of the petitioner. The proviso impugned and the order dated 20- 09-12 has been made with a deliberate attempt to deprive the petitioner from his pensionary and other consequential service benefits accruing under the ordinary service regulations/rules and with a view to bringing the services of the petitioner within the ambit of SRO 400 dated 24-12-2009, providing that employees appointed or brought on regular establishment on or after 01-01-2010 shall not be entitled to the benefits under the already existing/in force ordinary pension rules.

b) Writ of certiorari for quashment of Govt. orders no. 569-HME of 2012 dated 20-09-2012 passed by respondent no. 2, to the extent it provides that the petitioner shall be on probation for a period of two years and also that the petitioner/ appointee shall be governed by the proviso n of SRO 400 of 2009 dated 24-12- 2009, being illegal, unconstitutional and violative of the rights of the petitioner for his regularization on the completion of seven years of his adhoc services much earlier to coming into force of SRO 400 of 2009 .

c) Commanding and directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date the petitioner had completed seven years of his services on the analogy of regularization of a considerable number of adhoc employees who had been similarly situated with the present petitioner but was regularized much earlier during the years 2001 to 2008 and who having been constituting one class with the petitioner has been treated differently and had been blessed with early regularization and with the regular pensionary benefits provided under ordinary pension rules resulting in a serious discrimination against the petitioner, in serious violation of the constitutional mandate as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.

d) Commanding and directing the respondents to bring the regularization of the petitioner within the ambit and purview of Govt. order 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 06-11-2001 based on the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in AIR 1992 SC State of Haryana vs Piara Singh followed by judgment of Hon'ble J&K High court in SWP No. 283/94 and to treat the petitioner to has been regularized from the date of completion of his seven years of service respectively or soon thereafter and beheld entitled to all the consequential benefits/back wages from the date of deemed regularization and the pensionary benefits under the ordinary pension rules at par with such regularized adhoc employees as had been appointed along with the petitioner and was similarly situated with the petitioner but was regularized prior to coming into force of SRO 400 of 2009 .

e) Commanding and directin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1454

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
Waryam Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
TA No. 3675/2020 | SWP No. 2170/2018

An employee entitled to regularization prior to a cut-off date for pension scheme cannot be denied old pension benefits due to administrative delay in processing their regularization.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Whether an adhoc employee who completed seven years of service acquired a right to consideration under the existing regularization policy?

5. Can the State benefit from its own administrative delay to deny regularization that was due earlier?

6. Can a cut-off date under a new pension scheme be applied to an employee who was entitled to regularization before that date?

7. Is placing an employee on probation after nearly twenty years of continuous service arbitrary?

8. Can a proviso in a regularization Act retrospectively extinguish rights that had already accrued under a prior policy?

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1454

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALRajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial MemberWaryam Singh – AppellantVersusState of Jammu & Kashmir – RespondentTA No. 3675/2020 | SWP No. 2170/2018

An employee entitled to regularization prior to a cut-off date for pension scheme cannot be denied old pension benefits due to administrative delay in processing their regularization.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Whether an adhoc employee who completed seven years of service acquired a right to consideration under the existing regularization policy?

5. Can the State benefit from its own administrative delay to deny regularization that was due earlier?

6. Can a cut-off date under a new pension scheme be applied to an employee who was entitled to regularization before that date?

7. Is placing an employee on probation after nearly twenty years of continuous service arbitrary?

8. Can a proviso in a regularization Act retrospectively extinguish rights that had already accrued under a prior policy?

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
Waryam Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
TA No. 3675/2020 | SWP No. 2170/2018