##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Case No: WP(C) No. 3565/2025

CM No.8131/2025

Reserved on: 17.12.2025

Pronounced on:30.12.2025

Uploaded on:30.12.2025

Whether the operative part or full

Judgment is pronounced : Full

UT of J&K and others.

…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Assisting counsel.

v/s

Karnail Singh and others

…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, Advocate

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.

JUDGMENT

PER OSWAL-J

1. By virtue of an order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu, Original Application

No. 61/854/2020, titled ‘Karnail Singh and others v. UT of Jammu &

Kashmir and others’, preferred by the respondents-applicants was

WP(C) No. 3565/2025 Page 1 of 7

allowed, and the petitioners were directed to regularize the services of

the respondents-applicants, who had served as Daily Wagers/Daily

Rated Workers for more than two decades continuously, in

accordance with SRO 64 of 1994, after taking into account the

observations made in the said order, and to issue appropriate orders

within a period of eight weeks. The respondents-applicants were

further held entitled to all consequential benefits, including wage

arrears, from the date they became eligible for such regularization

under SRO 64 of 1994 till the date of their actual regularization.

Additionally, those respondents-applicants who had attained the age

of superannuation were held eligible for pensionary benefits.

2. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 04.04.2025 on the

grounds that the learned Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that

the engagement of the applicants, namely Mohd. Farooq, Ingrez Singh

and Nasir Hussain, was made under the Social Forestry Project and

not against any regular cadre or sanctioned post. It is further

contended that the applicants did not place on record any document to

establish the continuity of engagement, legality of appointment, or

possession of the requisite academic qualifications, in order to justify

their claim for regularization. It is also urged that the learned Tribunal

erred in law in allowing the regularization of applicant Nos. 6 and 8,

namely Nasir Hussain and Balwinder Singh, who were initially

engaged at the age of 16 and 17 years respectively, in violation of

Rule 4(b) of SRO 64 of 1994. Besides, it is contended that the

regularization of applicant Nos. 1, 4 and 5, namely, Karnail Singh,

Gharu Ram and Subash Chand, who are illiterate, 5^th and 7^th class pass

WP(C) No. 3565/2025 Page 2 of 7

respectively, is in clear violation of SRO 64 of 1994. Their

regularization could not have been directed by the learned Tribunal in

the absence of any specific finding that relaxation of the prescribed

qualifications was duly considered and granted by the competent

Administrative Department in terms of the proviso to Rule 4(c) of

SRO 64 of 1994. The petitioners have also placed reliance upon the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of

Karnataka v. Uma Devi and others to assail the impugned order

passed by the learned Tribunal.

3. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the

petitioners has submitted that the order impugned is not sustainable in

the eyes of law.

4. Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, learned counsel for the respondents has

submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly determined the

controversy and this petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. Record reveals that respondents-applicants filed the Original

Application seeking regularization of their services by asserting that

they were engaged as Daily Wagers/Daily Rated Workers by the

Rural Development Department on different dates and had been

working continuously for several years. It was contended that, by

virtue of such continuous engagement, they had acquired a right to be

considered for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. It was

further sta