HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on: 03.12.2025 Pronounced on 11.12.2025 Uploaded on 11.12.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full Judgment CJ Court:

WP(C) No. 3303/2025 U. T. of J&K and others …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG v/s Kashmir Singh …. Respondent(s)

Through: None.

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.

JUDGMENT

PER OSWAL-J

1. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Central Administration Tribunal, Jammu (for short the Tribunal), whereby the OA No. 61/456/2024, titled, “Kashmir Singh vs. U. T. of J&K and others” filed by the respondent has been allowed and the respondents therein i.e. petitioners, have been directed to regularize the respondent, who has served as Daily Wager for about three decades continuously, in accordance with SRO 64 of 1994 dated 22.03.1994 (for short the SRO 64), taking into account the observations made in the said order within eight weeks and further, the respondent has also been held entitled to all consequential benefits, including wages arrears, commencing from the date, he became eligible for regularization as per aforementioned SRO and ending with the date of issuing of the regularization order.

2. The petitioners have assailed the order impugned on the ground that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the speaking order dated 10.12.2022, passed with valid reasons, rejecting the respondent‟s claim for regularization as the respondent did not fulfill the specific criteria prescribed in SRO 64. It is further stated that the learned Tribunal has ignored the settled proposition of law that continuation on daily wage basis, even for a long duration, does not create a vested right to be absorbed in regular service. It is also contended by the petitioners that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the regularization under SRO 64 is subject to fulfillment of specific criteria relating to age, qualification, availability of vacancies and issuance of formal approval by the competent authority.

3. Before we consider the grounds of challenge to the order impugned, interestingly the petitioners have admitted in para 1 (i) at page No. 7 of the writ petition that the respondent was engaged as a “Daily Wager” in the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department on 02.09.1993 and has been working in Mahore Irrigation Division. Thus, there is clear admission on the part of the petitioners that the respondent was engaged as Daily Wager in the PHE Department.

4. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent after completing 7 years regular services in the Department approached the petitioners for regularization of his services but his case was not considered by the petitioners despite being fully eligible in terms of SRO 64. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 704/2012, tiled,„Kashmir Singh and others vs. State of J&K and others‟ and vide order dated 30.03.2012, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to accord consideration to the case of the respondent for regularization in accordance with law. The respondent filed the execution application bearing APSWP No. 38/2016 for execution of order dated 30.03.2012 The petitioners issued a speaking order dated 10.12.2022 rejecting the claim for regularization during the pendency of the execution petition. This rejection served as a fresh cause of action, prompting the respondent to file a substantive challenge before the learned Tribunal.

5. The respondent pleaded before the learned Tribunal that his regularization was due from 01.04.2001. This date is clearly reflected in the list prepared by the Executive Engineer, Special Sub-Division Mahore, as the proposed date of regularization. Furthermore, the Chief Engineer, PHE, Jammu, also prepared a list confirming this position.

6. Despite the respondent's eligibility, petitioner No. 5, throu