Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 30: In a significant judgment reinforcing the rights of long-serving daily wage and ad hoc employees, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed two petitions filed by the Union Territory administration and upheld orders directing the regularisation of 17 workers engaged by the Forest Department.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem ruled that the State cannot continue to benefit from the services of workers for decades and later deny them regularisation by describing their engagement as temporary, need-based or ad hoc. The court observed that such a practice amounts to exploitation and is inconsistent with the obligations of a welfare State.
The petitions challenged separate orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, in favour of 16 daily rated workers of the Eco Task Force Division, Jammu, and Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Malik, who had served as a Mali in the Forest Division, Doda.
In the first case, the CAT had directed the regularisation of 16 workers led by Vijay Kumar under the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994 and the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010. The workers had rendered nearly 25 to 30 years of continuous service as daily rated labourers in the Eco Task Force Division.
The Tribunal relied on muster rolls, service certificates and duty registers to establish their uninterrupted engagement over the years. The High Court noted that these records had not been disputed by the department.
The Forest Department argued that the workers had been engaged only on a need basis and not against sanctioned posts. It further contended that regularisation policies, including SRO 64 of 1994 and SRO 520 of 2017, stood repealed following the issuance of S.O. 514 dated October 6, 2023, and therefore no scheme remained in force for regularising their services.
Rejecting these arguments, the Division Bench observed that continuous engagement for nearly three decades itself demonstrated that the work performed by the employees was permanent in nature.
The court held that the State could not use technical labels such as “temporary”, “seasonal” or “need-based” as a shield to deny justice after benefiting from the labour of workers for decades. It added that a policy of “hire and fire” undermines the dignity of labour, creates insecurity and defeats the very purpose of public employment.
In the second case, the court upheld the CAT’s order directing regularisation of Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Malik as Mali with effect from January 1, 2002, along with all consequential benefits, including promotion.
Official records revealed that Malik had been performing duties related to fencing, sowing and plantation work in Kuntwara Range since 1991-92. He was initially engaged without wages and was later temporarily appointed against an available post of Mali in December 1994, continuing in service for more than 30 years.
The Bench noted that even departmental records acknowledged his long service and the fact that he had become overage while waiting for regularisation.
Relying on recent Supreme Court judgments, the High Court held that public authorities cannot perpetuate prolonged ad hoc employment by merely assigning temporary labels to workers performing permanent functions. Finding no illegality in the CAT orders, the court dismissed both petitions and affirmed the regularisation relief granted to all 17 workers.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
