Back
Seasonal Dreams Denied: J&K&L High Court Rejects Plea for Labourer Regularisation Amid Hiring Freeze
In a ruling that underscores the boundaries of judicial intervention in government hiring policies, the dismissed a by long-serving seasonal labourers seeking permanent status. Justice Sanjay Parihar held that courts cannot direct regularization when a blanket government ban on engagements exists, especially where seniority and duties differentiate workers.
From Irrigation Fields to Courtroom Battle
The petitioners, Mohammad Amin Rather and others, have toiled as seasonal labourers in the Union Territory's since . Engaged only during the irrigation season on a need basis, they watched as respondents 6 to 9—similarly hired under the same scheme—were elevated to "permanent casual labourers" via a order. These peers were shifted to year-round watch and ward duties.
Challenging a rejection order, the petitioners filed under , demanding parity through . The core question: Can the administration deny equal treatment to identically placed workers without violating ?
Petitioners Cry Foul on 'Hostile Discrimination'
The labourers' counsel argued arbitrary classification.
"Despite long service, petitioners remain overlooked while juniors get year-round jobs,"
they contended, labeling it a breach of equality. Citing their identical origins as seasonal hires, they invoked precedents like
to decry arbitrariness as antithetical to Article 14.
Respondents Defend with Rules, Ranks, and Reality
Government advocates countered sharply: Petitioners don't meet eligibility. Unlike the favoured group, adjusted for seniority-driven watch duties amid exigencies, petitioners rank lower and stay strictly seasonal. A blanket ban on new engagements looms large, with over 3,000 similar workers across Kashmir districts—a policy courts can't override, they urged.
Judicial Scales: Seniority Tips the Balance
Justice Parihar dissected the parity claim, acknowledging initial similarities but spotlighting distinctions.
"The petitioners admittedly figure much lower in the seniority list,"
he noted, validating differential treatment. Drawing from
and
, the court affirmed but rejected ""—no right to perpetuate irregularity, per
.
The landmark loomed large: No regularization sans legal appointment. With the ban in place, mandating absorption would invade executive turf. probes process, not policy, absent patent arbitrariness.
Key Observations from the Bench
"Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution postulates positive equality and not . Merely because some benefit may have been extended in favour of another set of employees, the same by itself does not confer an enforceable right..."
"This distinction [seniority and seasonal duties], in the opinion of this Court, constitutes a reasonable basis for differential treatment."
"Issuance of a direction by this Court for extending permanent casual labour status to the petitioners would amount to transgressing into the domain of executive policy."
"Courts must refrain from issuing directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the appointment itself is made in accordance with law."( Umadevi cited)
Petition Dismissed: No Blanket Parity
The writ stands dismissed, vacating interim relief. Practically, it shields fiscal restraint amid bans, signals seniority's primacy in service claims, and cautions against . For thousands of Kashmir's seasonal workers, it cements status quo—hopes deferred, not demands decreed.
As LiveLaw reports, this reinforces Umadevi 's enduring grip, ensuring regularization remains policy, not petition-driven.
