Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4622

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member, Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative Member
Bodh Raj – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
O.A. No. 61/1325/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: O P Thakur, Sr. Adv., Gourav Arora
For the Respondents: Sudesh Magotra, A.A.G.

Long-serving casual labourers treated as daily rated workers entitled to regularization under SRO 64 despite nomenclature issues, minor breaks, or scheme repeal; vested rights from seven years continuous service prevail with equality to juniors.

Headnote:(A) Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules, 1994 - SRO 64 of 1994 - Casual labourers who rendered continuous service over three decades as daily rated workers entitled to regularization upon completing seven years continuous service despite nominal breaks and interchangeable nomenclature - Repeal of scheme does not extinguish accrued vested rights - Discriminatory denial to similarly situated juniors violates equality - Retrospective regularization with consequential benefits including old pension scheme. (Paras 16-33)

(B) Service Law - Long continuous service creates presumption against casual nature - Minor technical breaks over decades cannot defeat regularization rights - State cannot benefit from own delay in processing claims. (Paras 20-25)

(C) Compassionate appointment - Posthumous regularization of deceased worker entitles family to consideration under relevant rules without delay plea. (Para 32)

Facts of the case:
Applicants engaged as daily wagers between 1992-1993 in Forest Department completed seven years continuous service by 1999-2000 but denied regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 despite juniors being regularized in 2004 - High Court directed consideration but rejection orders issued citing casual labour status, service breaks, and scheme repeal - Some applicants superannuated, one deceased in harness.

Findings of Court:
Impugned rejection order quashed - Services regularized retrospectively from date of completing seven years service with arrears, seniority, promotions, old pension benefits - Posthumous regularization for deceased with family compassionate appointment consideration within three months.

Issues: Whether casual labourers with long continuous service qualify as daily rated workers for regularization; effect of nominal service breaks and scheme repeal on vested rights; entitlement to equality with regularized juniors.

Ratio Decidendi: Employees rendering decades-long service cannot be denied regularization by technical labels or minor breaks; vested rights accrue on completing seven years and survive scheme repeal; state discrimination against long-serving workers impermissible, permitting regularization even of irregular appointments per one-time measures.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicants engaged as daily wagers seek regularization under sro 64. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondents deny regularization claiming casual labour status. (Para 5 , 6 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. applicants argue discrimination and minor breaks irrelevant. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court identifies key issues on status and service continuity. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. long service converts casual to daily rated workers. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. nominal breaks do not defeat regularization rights. (Para 24)
7. uma devi permits regularization of irregular long-term service. (Para 25 , 26)
8. repeal does not extinguish accrued regularization rights. (Para 27)
9. discrimination against equals violates articles 14, 16. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
10. impugned order quashed; regularization and benefits directed. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

O R D E R

1.Per:- Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member The applicants have filed the instant Original Application (in short O.A.) seeking the following reliefs:-

“a) Quashing the Government Order bearing No. 86 JK (FST) of 2024 dated 10-4-2024, issued by respondent No. 3, whereby, the claim of the applicants 1 to 6, husband of applicant No. 7 namely Late Sh. Ashok Singh and applicant No. 8 for regularization as class-IV employees under SRO 64 of 1994 has been rejected, as being unconstitutional, illegal and contrary to law.

b) Directing the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants 1 to 6, husband of applicant No. 7 namely Late Sh. Ashok Singh and applicant No. 8 as class-IV employees under SRO 64 of 1994 with effect from the dates they had completed 7 years of service, while working as daily wagers in the Forest Department, with all consequential benefits i.e arrears of pay, salary, in-situ promotions, pensionary benefits in case of applicants 1,2,7 and 8.

c) Directing the respondents to treat the services of the applicants 1 to 6, husband of applicant No. 7 namely Late Sh. Ashok Singh and applicant No. 8, under the Old Pension Scheme, after regularizing their services with effect from the dates they completed 7 years of service.

d) Directing the respondents to appoint one of the family members of applicant No. 7 on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994 on account of death of husband of applicant No. 7 who died in harness on 16-12-2016.”

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the O.A. are that applicants No. 1 to 6, applicant No. 8, and the husband of applicant No. 7 (for convenience all of them are referred to as applicants) were engaged as daily wagers in the Forest Department on various dates between 1992 and 1993. Having completed seven years of continuous service between 1999 and 2000, the applicants became entitled to regularization as Class-IV employees under Rule 8 of SRO 64 of 1994. However, while the respondents regularized similarly circumstanced individuals and juniors in 2004, the applicants were subjected to discriminatory treatment and denied the same benefit.

3. Aggrieved by the inaction, the applicants filed SWP No. 2487 of 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K. Vide judgment dated 20.11.2013, the Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants within eight weeks in accordance with the rules and the treatment given to similarly situated candidates. Despite the Hon’ble High Court's order, the respondents did not do anything except issuing inter-se communications between them compelling the applicants to file Contempt Petition No. CCP (S) No. 133/2020, wherein the respondents by way of compliance report stated that in the 3rd meeting of the Empowered Committee held on 02.05.2016, the Empowered Committee found that the applicants were not entitled for regularization under the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994, being engaged as Casual Labourers.

4. It is averred in the O.A. that even, after the aforesaid decision taken by the Empowered Committee, the Respondent No. 5 vide order dated 22.12.2016, ordered that nomenclature of the applicants,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4622

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member, Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative MemberBodh Raj – AppellantVersusUT of J&K – RespondentO.A. No. 61/1325/2024

Long-serving casual labourers treated as daily rated workers entitled to regularization under SRO 64 despite nomenclature issues, minor breaks, or scheme repeal; vested rights from seven years continuous service prevail with equality to juniors.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member, Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative Member
Bodh Raj – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
O.A. No. 61/1325/2024