CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member, Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative Member
Kamal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
O.A. No. 61/1044/2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants' long continuous daily wager service established. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 13 , 14 , 24) |
| 2. applicants claim regularization under sro 64; respondents cite uma devi. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. applicants eligible post-1994 cut-off extension to 2001. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. high court precedents affirm post-1994 regularization entitlement. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. uma devi inapplicable; distinguishes irregular statutory engagements. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 6. repeal does not affect accrued seven-year regularization rights. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. discriminatory to deny similarly situated employees regularization. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. direct regularization after seven years continuous service ordered. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
O R D E R
Per:- Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member
The brief facts of the case, as stated, in the Original Application (in short O.A.) are that applicants were engaged as Daily Wagers in the PHE City Division No. II on different dates commencing from June 1996 to February 2000 and subsequently, they were transferred to PHE City Division No. I. It is averred that the applicants, since the date of their engagement, have been performing their duties continuously and uninterruptedly in the department without any break and completed seven years of continuous service between June 2003 and September 2007, thereby acquiring eligibility for regularization under the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules 1994 issued vide SRO 64 of 1994 dated 24.03.1994. However, their claim for regularization was not considered by the respondents on the ground that their engagement was after March 1994, and as per provisions of SRO 64 of 1994, the daily rated workers, who were engaged upto March 1994 would acquire the eligibility for regularization on completion of seven years of continuous service in the department.
2. It is further averred in the O.A. that an Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 06.11.2001 was issued by the Government in pursuance to Cabinet Decision No. 135/11 (B) dated 10.02.2001, whereby, the cut-off date for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 was extended to 06.11.2001. The applicants again approached the respondents for consideration of their claim for regularization and in the year 2017, their cases were recommended by the respondents No. 2 & 3 and forwarded to Respondent No. 1 for regularization, but, no action was taken by Respondent No. 1 in this regard. Subsequently, the applicants filed a detailed representation dated 14.08.2024, before the respondents, stating therein that several daily wagers engaged after 1994 have been regularized by the Government under SRO 64 of 1994 read with Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 06.11.2001.
3. It is further averred in the O.A. that since the applicants are continuously performing their duties in the department from the date of their initial engagement, without any break and have completed more than 25 years of service as Daily Wagers, the respondents are under an obligation to regularize their services under SRO 64 of 1994 read with Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 06.11.2001. That the applicants are also entitled to the wages from March 2015, which have been illegally withheld by the respondents. Being aggrieved of inaction of the respondents in not considering their claim for regularization, the applicants have filed the instant O.A. seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) To regularize the services of the applicant w.e.f. the date of completion of seven years of continuous service as daily wager, with all consequential benefits, in terms of provisions of SRO 64 of 1994 read with Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 06.11.2001 and also in the light of judgement passed by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of J&K in State V/s Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail’s case.
(ii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. Notices were issued

Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.