UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY FOREST DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS vs VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU




WP(C) No. 1199/2026


Reserved on: 12.05.2026
Pronounced on:30.05.2026
Uploaded on:30.05.2026


Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced



1. Union Territory of J&K through
Commissioner/Secretary, Forest Department,
Govt. of J&K, Civil Sectt., Jammu/Srinagar.
2. Principal, Chief Conservator of Forests,
Forest Complex, Dogra Hall, Jammu.
3. Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu Region.
4. Conservator of Forests,
East Circle, Forest Complex, Dogra Hall, Jammu.
5. Divisional Forest Officer, Eco Task Force, Jammu.

..…. Petitioner(s)
Through
:-
Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG.
V/s


1. Vijay Kumar Age 36 years
S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal
R/o Sandhori Tehsil and District Jammu.
2. Ghulam Qadir Age 44 years
S/o Sh. Quatub Din
R/o Sagoon Tehsil and District Jammu.

3. Manoj Singh Age 40 years
S/o Sansar Singh
R/o Surinsar Tehsil and District Jammu.
4. Kuldeep Singh Age 40 years
S/o Rattan Singh
R/o Dagheed Tehsil and District Samba.
5. Rashpal Singh Age 38 years
S/o Sh. Gian Singh
R/o Dagheed Tehsil and District Samba.

6. Ram Pal Age 40 years
S/o Maju Ram
WP(C) No.1199/2026 Page 1 of 9

R/o Village Khanna Chhargal (Dhoon)
Tehsil and District Jammu.
7. Ashraf Hussain Age 27 years
S/o Fazal Din
R/o Village Khanna Chhargal (Sandhi)
Tehsil and District Jammu.
8. Sher Mohd. Age 39 years
S/o Sharief Mohd.
R/o Pacholi Tehsil and District Samba.
9. Farman Ali Age 36 years
S/o Navab Din
R/o Pacholi Tehsil and District Samba.
10. Vijay Kumar Age 35 years
S/o Sh. Lal Chand
R/o Pacholi Tehsil and District Samba.
11. Prem Singh Age 45 years
S/o Sh. Mast Ram
R/o Pacholi Tehsil and District Samba.
12. Gurdev Singh Age 27 years
S/o Kaka Singh
R/o Dagair Tehsil and District Jammu.
13. Rasal Puri Age 42 years
S/o Sh. Tirath Ram
R/o Morh Garh Tehsil Samba.
14. Raguvir Singh Age 27 years
S/o Nehal Singh
R/o Morha Akher, Khara Madana,
Tehsil and District Samba.
15. Farman Ali Age 27 years
S/o Gh. Hussain
R/o Barhi Khad Tehsil and District Samba.
16. Showkat Ali Age 35 years
S/o Rehmat Ali
R/o Pacholi Tehsil and District Samba.
…..Respondent(s)
Through Mr. C.S Azad, Advocate for R-1,
6, 7, 9, 10 & 12.




HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE

CORAM:
JUDGMENT

Per: Shahzad Azeem, J

1. With the consensus of learned counsels for the parties,
the petition is taken on board for hearing.
WP(C) No.1199/2026 Page 2 of 9

2. Petitioners have thrown challenge to the order dated 02
June 2025 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Jammu Bench, Jammu (‘ the Tribunal ’) in TA No.61/5309/2021
titled “ Vijay Kumar and others vs. State of Jammu and
Kashmir and others
”, whereby the petitioners herein
(respondents before the Tribunal) have been directed to regularize
the services of the respondents herein (applicants before the
Tribunal) under SRO 64 of 1994 and/or the Jammu and Kashmir
Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010.
3. The respondents were engaged as daily rated workers in
the Eco Task Force Division of the Forest Department and by now
had completed, 25 to 30 years of their respective services as daily
rated workers. The Tribunal relied upon the muster roll, service
certificates and duty registers to substantiate the continuous and
uninterrupted engagement of the respondents for the aforesaid
period.
4. Notwithstanding the aforesaid position, the petitioners
still have felt indignant of the order under challenge, whereby they
were directed to regularize the services of the respondents, in view
of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “ Jaggo vs.
Union of India ” 2024 SCC OnLine 3826 .
5. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order,
mainly on the ground that the services of the respondents were
hired on need basis and were not against sanctioned posts,
WP(C) No.1199/2026 Page 3 of 9

therefore, in absence of any Scheme for regularization of their
services, the Tribunal has committed illegality in passing the
impugned order.
6. The petitioners have also taken the ground that all
regularization policies, including SRO 64 of 1994 dated 24 March
1994 and SRO 520 of 2017 dated 21 December, 2017, were
repealed vide S.O 514 dated 06 October 2023, therefore,
according to the petitioners there is no regularization policy in
vogue under which the claim of the respondents for regularization
can be considered.
7. Per contra, Mr. C.S Azad, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents toe the line of reasoning given by the Tribunal
while passing the impugned order, therefore, same shall be taken
note of hereinafter at appropriate stage.
8. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
9. Indisputably, the respondents are performing their duties
for last 25 to 30 years and in this regard the Tribunal has relied
upon muster roll, service certificates and duty register, which are
not disputed by the petitioners. Now, the point that needs
consideration is, as to whether the respondents (applicants) after
having been allowed to perform the duties under any
nomenclature for about three decades, same can be labelled as,
“ temporary ” or “ of limited duration ”.
WP(C) No.1199/2026 Page 4 of 9

10. The continuity of services of the respondents itself proves
the permanency of the work. Practice of hire and fire undermines
the dignity of labour, creates insecurity, and defeats the very
purpose of public employment, therefore, State cannot use
technical labels, like temporary, need base, seasonal labour etc.,
as a shield to deny justice after it has already benefitted from the
employees’ labour for decades. In “ Shripal and another vs.
Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad” reported as 2025 SCC Online SC
221 Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:
“14. The Respondent Employer places reliance
on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage
or temporary employees cannot claim
permanent absorption in the absence of
statutory rules providing such absorption.
However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi
itself distinguishes between appointments that
are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the
latter being eligible for regularization if they
meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma
Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify
exploitative engagements persisting for years
without the Employer undertaking legitimate
recruitment. Given the record which shows no
true contractor based arrangement and a
consistent need for permanent horticultural
staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh
recruitment, though real, cannot justify
indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair
practices”.

WP(C) No.1199/2026 Page 5 of 9

11. Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively further held
that Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or
contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is
permanent in nature.
12. Again in Jaggo Vs. Union of India; AIR 2025 SC 296,
strongly deprecated the practice of brushing aside long and
uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten
years, merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time
or contractual. Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the contention of
the respondent that there were no regular posts by holding that
the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial
and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. It was further
held that the appellants’ performance over their long tenures
further solidifies their claim for regularization. In this regard,
what has been held in para No.22 assumes importance and same
reads thus:-
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary
employment contracts, as exemplified in this
case, reflects a broader systemic issue that
adversely affects workers' rights and job
security. In the private sector, the rise of the
gig economy has led to an increase in
precarious employment arrangements, often
characterized by lack of benefits, job security,
and fair treatment. Such practices have been
criticized for exploiting workers and
undermining labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding the
WP(C) No.1199/2026 Page 6 of 9

principles of fairness and justice, bear an
even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices. When
public sector entities engage in misuse of
temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the
detrimental trends observed in the gig
economy but also sets a concerning precedent
that can erode public trust in governmental
operations.

13. It is worth noting that Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P & Anr.; AIR 2025 SC
3897 unequivocally while referring to Uma Devi (supra) held that
same draws distinction between illegal appointment and irregular
engagements and does not endorse perpetuation of precarious
employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has
failed, for years, to put its house in order. Hon’ble Supreme Court,
while noting the long and perennial nature of duties of appellants
ordered for regularization of their services.
14. In a recent judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Bhola Nath Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors; 2026 SCC
OnLine SC 129 after taking note of the law laid down in Jaggo
(supra), Shripal (supra), Dharam Singh (supra) and often quoted
Uma Devi (supra) held that the respondent-State was not justified
in continuing the appellants for over a decade under the
nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying
them consideration for regularization. Hon’ble Supreme Court
has further observed that the State, as a model employer, cannot
WP(C) No.1199/2026 Page 7 of 9

rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Uma Devi
(supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving
employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and
constitutional governance and finally, directed the State to
forthwith regularize the services of the appellants.
15. Be that as it may, after extracting work from the
respondents continuously for about 25 to 30 years, it does not lie
in the mouth of the State to assert that status of the respondents
was that of casual workers or they were engaged on need basis,
rather the continuity of the respondents in the department in
whatever capacity, goes to show the permanency of the work, they
were made to perform, thus, State being Model Employer is not
expected to resort to the policy of “hire and fire”.
16. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners regarding
repeal of SRO 64 of 1994 and SRO 520 of 2017 are concerned,
same is not only self-defeating, but also is not sustainable in view
of settled legal position that a right accrued under the Statute
cannot be taken away retrospectively. The repeal of the Act or
Rules cannot be applied to defeat a right that had crystallized
under the repealed Act, more so, when it amounts to violation of
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
17. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the
engagements of the respondents were on need basis, is also
refuted by the admitted fact that the respondents had been
performing continuous and uninterrupted duties for about three
decades, therefore, such work cannot be termed as temporary,
WP(C) No.1199/2026 Page 8 of 9

rather same with the passage of time had acquired the status of
permanence.
18. From the above made discussion, it is seen that the
Tribunal has taken a pragmatic view, therefore, we do not find
any error of fact or law committed by the Tribunal while passing
the impugned order dated 02 June 2025. Accordingly, the present
writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.





(Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge

JAMMU
30.05.2026
Surinder
Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable?: Yes/No
Surinder Kumar
2026.05.30 13:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
WP(C) No.1199/2026 Page 9 of 9