AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a)An appropriate order in the nature of direction for quashing of the 74-JK (RD&PR) of 2023 dated 03.02.2023 passed by respondent no.1 by which he has rejected the claim of the applicant for regularizing his services as per SRO-64 of 1994;
b)Further commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant from 01.01.2001 as per SRO-64 of 1994 when he has completed seven years of the services;
c)Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: -
The brief facts, as projected by the applicant, are that he was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker in the Rural Development Department on 01.01.1994 and has continued to work with the respondents since then. The applicant, stated to be 11th pass and belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, claims to have rendered continuous and satisfactory service for more than 29 years. His grievance is that despite such long service, his services have not been regularized.
The applicant submits that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir had framed a policy for regularization/permanent absorption of Daily Rated Workers under SRO-64 dated 24.03.1994, read with Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 06.11.2001. According to him, a Daily Rated Worker completing seven years of continuous service and otherwise fulfilling the prescribed conditions was entitled to consideration for regularization. Since the applicant had been engaged on 01.01.1994, he claims that he completed seven years of service on 01.01.2001 and consequently became eligible for regularization from that date.
It is the case of the applicant that although he continued to discharge his duties satisfactorily, his claim for regularization was not considered, whereas similarly situated persons engaged along with him were allegedly regularized. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, he approached the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir by filing SWP No. 361/2009. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 02.03.2009 with a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for regularization within a period of two months from the date of service of the order and also to release the undisputed wages, if any.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the applicant submitted a representation along with a copy of the order dated 02.03.2009 to the competent authority. However, according to the applicant, no effective decision was taken upon his claim for a considerable period. He thereafter continued to pursue the matter before the departmental authorities seeking regularization under SRO-64 of 1994.
The applicant further states that upon his subsequent representation, the concerned authorities sought his service particulars and bio-data for consideration of his claim. In this regard, his bio-data was forwarded vide communication No. BDO/P/2017-18/229 dated 17.05.2017 for further necessary action. Since no final decision followed, the applicant again submitted a representation on 29.06.2017 requesting the authorities to regularize his services, contending that by then he had rendered more than two decades of continuous service. According to him, despite these recommendations/communications and repeated representations, his case remained pending without any final decision.
The applicant asserts that similarly situated Daily Rated Workers had been extended the benefit of regularization, whereas his case alone continued to remain unattended. He, therefore, alleges discriminatory treatment and contends that once he had completed the requisite seven years of service in the year 2001, his claim ought to have been considered in accordance with SRO-64 of 1994 and the applicable Government orders.
As his grievance remained unresolved, the applicant again approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing WP(C) No. 4445/2019. Consequent upon conferment of jurisdiction upon this Tribunal, the writ petition came to be transferred to the Tribunal. The transferred matter was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 04.03.2022, directing the respondents to treat the transferred application as a representation and to dispose of the applicant's claim by passing a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the matter was considered by respondent No. 1. However, vide Government Order No. 74-JK (RD&PR) of 2023 dated 03.02.2023, the claim of the applicant for regularization under SRO-64 of 1994 was rejected. The applicant contends that the rejection is legally unsustainable and is based upon an erroneous understanding of the applicable regularization policy as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi. According to him, his claim had accrued under the statutory scheme governing Daily Rated Workers and could not have been rejected merely by relying upon the principles governing irregular appointments.
Aggrieved by Government Order No. 74-JK (RD&PR) of 2023 dated 03.02.2023, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking quashing of the said order and a consequential direction to the respondents to regularize his services with effect from 01.01.2001, i.e., the date on which, according to him, he completed seven years of service and became eligible for consideration under SRO-64 of 1994, along with consequential benefits.
The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
On merits, the respondents submit that Government Order No. 74-JK (RD&PR) of 2023 dated 03.02.2023, whereby the applicant's claim for regularization was rejected, has been issued after consideration of the relevant rules and the legal position governing the subject. They, therefore, deny that the impugned order suffers from any illegality warranting interference by the Tribunal.
The respondents acknowledge that the applicant, Sham Lal, was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker with effect from 01.01.1994 pursuant to an order issued under endorsement No. BDO/P/1993-94/165 dated 29.12.1993 by the Block Development Officer, Purmandal, District Samba. However, it is specifically pleaded that his engagement and continuation as a Daily Rated Worker in Block Purmandal was without approval of the competent authority.
The respondents further state that in the year 2009, the applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir by filing SWP No. 361/2009, CMP No. 476/2009, seeking consideration of his claim for regularization under SRO-64 of 1994. The writ petition was disposed of on 02.03.2009 with a direction to the competent authority to consider his claim for regularization within a period of two months. The respondents maintain that such direction was only for consideration of the claim and did not confer any vested right upon the applicant to regularization.
It is further pleaded that cases of similarly situated Daily Rated Workers were forwarded by the Department to the General Administration Department for consideration. The General Administration Department, vide U.O. No. GAD-COD/257/2022-09 dated 02.01.2023, conveyed its opinion after examining the issue of regularization. According to the respondents, it was observed that regularization through executive orders, statutory rules or legislative enactments, contrary to the constitutional scheme of public employment, would offend Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, AIR 2006 SC 1806.
The respondents have specifically denied the allegation that the applicant has been subjected to discrimination or that the authorities have exercised their powers arbitrarily or colourably. Their stand is that the applicant’s case was examined in accordance with the applicable rules and prevailing legal position and, therefore, he cannot claim regularization merely on the basis of his long continuation as a Daily Rated Worker or by alleging that benefits had been granted to other persons.
With regard to the subsequent proceedings initiated by the applicant, the respondents state that his case stood transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 61/1987/2022, titled Sham Lal v. UT of J&K and Others. The said T.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 04.03.2022 with a direction to treat the T.A. as a representation for regularization and to decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks. It was expressly clarified in the said order that the Tribunal had not entered into the merits of the applicant's claim.
Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the respondents examined the applicant’s case in light of the advice/opinion conveyed by the General Administration Department and the prevailing legal position. Upon such consideration, his claim was found to be devoid of merit and consequently rejected by Government Order No. 74-JK (RD&PR) of 2023 dated 03.02.2023. The respondents thus contend that the earlier judicial directions stood duly complied with by considering and deciding the applicant’s claim through a speaking order.
On the aforesaid grounds, the respondents maintain that the applicant has no enforceable right to seek regularization under SRO-64 of 1994 in the circumstances of the case and that the impugned order dated 03.02.2023 does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. Accordingly, they have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the applicant's claim for regularization under SRO-64 of 1994, particularly when his status as a Daily Rated Worker and his engagement w.e.f. 01.01.1994 are substantially admitted by the respondents themselves.
At the outset, it is important to notice that the applicant’s initial engagement as a Daily Rated Worker is not a disputed fact. The respondents themselves state that an order bearing endorsement No. BDO/P/1993-94/165 dated 29.12.1993 was issued by the Block Development Officer, Purmandal, pursuant to which the applicant was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker w.e.f. 01.01.1994. The respondents further acknowledge his continuation in the department. Thus, this is not a case where the very factum of engagement or status of the applicant as a Daily Rated Worker rests merely upon an unsupported assertion.
SRO-64 of 1994 was promulgated in exercise of statutory powers and prescribed a specific scheme governing regularization of Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees. Rule 4 prescribes the conditions of eligibility, whereas Rule 8 deals with Daily Rated Workers who complete the prescribed period in subsequent financial years. The Hon’ble High Court has previously held that a Daily Rated Worker engaged before the relevant cut-off who subsequently completes seven years is required to be considered under Rules 4 and 8, subject to fulfillment of the conditions contained therein.
The applicant was admittedly engaged on 01.01.1994. He, therefore, falls within the class of Daily Rated Workers engaged prior to 31.03.1994. On completion of seven years of continuous service, his case was required to be examined under the statutory framework of SRO-64. Mere non-regularization by the department at the appropriate point of time cannot, by itself, extinguish a claim which had already become ripe for consideration under the applicable Rules.
Central Administrative Tribunal9. The principal defence of the respondents is founded upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3). There can be no quarrel with the proposition that appointments to public service must ordinarily conform to the constitutional mandate of equality of opportunity and that continuation for a long period by itself does not confer an automatic right to regularization. However, the controversy before this Tribunal has an additional and material feature: the applicant does not seek regularization merely on account of length of service; he bases his claim upon a specific statutory regularization framework, namely SRO-64 of 1994, applicable to Daily Rated Workers.
This distinction has now received substantial judicial recognition. Most importantly, in UT of J&K & Others v. Karnail Singh & Others, WP(C) No. 3565/2025, decided on 30.12.2025, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh considered a challenge to an order of this Tribunal directing regularization of Daily Wagers/Daily Rated Workers under SRO-64. The Government had relied upon Uma Devi and had also questioned age and educational qualifications of certain workers. The Hon’ble High Court declined interference and directed the authorities to pass appropriate regularization orders in accordance with SRO-64.
Of particular significance is the finding of the Hon’ble High Court that the employer possesses power under Rule 4 of SRO-64 to consider relaxation of eligibility conditions such as qualification and/or age wherever contemplated by the Rules. The Court consequently declined to permit the Government to defeat otherwise maintainable claims under SRO-64 merely by placing reliance upon Uma Devi.
The above pronouncement has a direct bearing upon the reasoning adopted in the impugned order. Once a statutory scheme specifically governs the case of Daily Rated Workers, the claim has to be tested on the touchstone of that scheme. A generalized reference to the constitutional principles discussed in Uma Devi, without determining whether the individual employee satisfies the requirements of SRO-64, cannot substitute the exercise mandated by the Rules.
There is yet another aspect. The applicant initially approached the High Court as far back as in 2009. A direction for consideration of his claim was issued on 02.03.2009. He continued pursuing the matter through representations. His bio-data was forwarded by the departmental authorities in 2017. He again approached the Court in 2019 and, after transfer of the proceedings, this Tribunal again directed consideration of his claim on 04.03.2022. Thus, the applicant has not remained dormant after acquiring eligibility; rather, the record demonstrates persistent pursuit of his claim.
The respondents’ plea that the applicant’s engagement was without approval of the competent authority also does not, in the facts presently before us, justify outright rejection of the claim. The engagement itself was made pursuant to an order issued by an officer of the Rural Development Department and the applicant was thereafter permitted by the department to continue working for decades. There is no allegation before us that the engagement order was forged or fabricated, nor is there any finding in the impugned order that the applicant obtained engagement through fraud or misrepresentation.
The respondents, being custodians of their own service records, cannot simultaneously acknowledge the applicant’s status as a Daily Rated Worker from 01.01.1994 and his long continuation and yet deny consideration under SRO-64 merely by making a general assertion regarding absence of approval, unless such deficiency is shown to constitute a specific disqualification under the governing Rules.
At the same time, this Tribunal is conscious that completion of seven years of service cannot be treated in isolation from the other eligibility conditions prescribed under Rule 4 of SRO-64. The judicially appropriate course is therefore to enforce the applicant’s right under the statutory scheme while leaving verification of the remaining objective eligibility requirements to the competent authority.
In this regard, the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble High Court concerning SRO-64 is instructive. It has been held that although a Daily Rated Worker engaged before the cut-off and completing seven years acquires entitlement for consideration, regularization has to be effected upon satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under Rule 4 and in accordance with Rule 8. The same approach appropriately balances the applicant’s statutory claim with the respondents’ obligation to verify eligibility.
We are therefore unable to sustain Government Order No. 74-JK (RD&PR) of 2023 dated 03.02.2023. The competent authority was required to examine whether the applicant, whose engagement as a Daily Rated Worker from 01.01.1994 is admitted, satisfied the conditions stipulated under SRO-64 when he completed the requisite period of continuous service. His claim could not have been rejected merely by invoking Uma Devi in the abstract.
The plea of discrimination raised by the applicant also cannot be brushed aside without examination. Though Article 14 does not envisage negative equality and an illegality committed in favour of another employee cannot be perpetuated, where persons similarly situated are regularized under the same statutory scheme, the authority is required to disclose a legally sustainable distinguishing feature for denying the same consideration to another eligible employee. In the present case, no sufficient distinction has been demonstrated in the impugned decision.
It also needs emphasis that the relief being granted herein does not amount to creation by this Tribunal of an independent mode of regularization contrary to the constitutional scheme of public employment. The direction is confined to consideration and grant of the benefit flowing from the statutory Rules which governed Daily Rated Workers and under which the applicant claims to have acquired eligibility during the subsistence of those Rules.
In view of the admitted engagement of the applicant as a Daily Rated Worker w.e.f. 01.01.1994, his continuous service thereafter, his persistent pursuit of the claim since 2009 and the law governing regularization under SRO-64, we are of the considered view that the impugned rejection cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. Government Order No. 74-JK (RD&PR) of 2023 dated 03.02.2023, whereby the claim of the applicant for regularization has been rejected, is hereby quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to accord to the applicant the benefit of regularization under SRO-64 of 1994 from the date on which he acquired eligibility under the said Rules, subject to verification of fulfillment of the other conditions prescribed under Rule 4 read with Rule 8 thereof. Since the applicant’s engagement as a Daily Rated Worker w.e.f. 01.01.1994 is admitted, the respondents shall not reopen the factum or nature of such engagement merely for defeating the present direction, except where the official record establishes fraud, fabrication or any specific statutory disqualification attributable to the applicant.
In case the applicant is found to have fulfilled all the prescribed conditions upon completion of the requisite period of continuous service, appropriate order of regularization shall be issued from the date of his eligibility, with all consequential service benefits admissible under law. The Hon'ble High Court in Karnail Singh has likewise directed regularization under SRO-64 with consequential benefits accruing from the date the concerned employees became eligible.
The entire exercise shall be completed by the competent authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The consequential monetary benefits, if found payable, shall thereafter be calculated and released within a further period of two months.
It is clarified that this order is based upon the peculiar facts of the present case, particularly the admitted status of the applicant as a Daily Rated Worker w.e.f. 01.01.1994 and his claim under SRO-64 of 1994, and shall not be construed as recognizing an unrestricted right of regularization merely on the basis of long continuation in service.
The Original Application stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending M.A(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.