Adverse Verification Report Lacking Specificity Cannot Bar Regularization of Long-Serving Employee Without Reasoned Adjudication.

The petitioner was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW) in the Jal Shakti Department (formerly PHE Division) on July 1, 1991

Following prolonged litigation that reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a judgment was passed in SWP No. 1579/2013 directing the department to regularize his services

Consequently, the government issued Order No. 189-JK (JSD) of 2025 on August 11, 2025, regularizing 223 candidates; the petitioner was listed at serial No. 33

While others received appointment orders, the petitioner’s appointment was deferred based on an adverse CID verification report dated March 5, 2026

The petitioner challenged this report as "cryptic and vague," asserting he has no criminal record and remains in active service but has been denied both wages and regular salary since the regularization order

1. Whether the adverse CID verification report dated March 5, 2026, is legally sustainable and whether the respondents are justified in withholding the petitioner’s appointment and salary despite a regularization order

2. Whether the Tribunal can direct the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending representations for the release of legitimately earned wages

The court prioritized the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness, alongside the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules, 1994 (SRO-64 of 1994), which govern the entitlement of long-term daily wagers to regularization

It adhered to the doctrine of finality of litigation, noting that the petitioner's rights were previously affirmed by the High Court and the Apex Court

Administratively, the court applied the principle that authorities must pass reasoned and speaking orders when deciding representations regarding service benefits and salary

The Tribunal noted the petitioner’s extensive service history from 1991 and his successful legal battle for regularization, which ended in his favor at the Supreme Court level

It observed that while a regularization order was issued, the actual appointment was stalled by a CID report that the petitioner claimed lacked specific reasons or criminal involvement (FIR)

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the CID report; instead, it focused on the procedural lapse where the petitioner was performing duties but not receiving wages or salary

By treating the Original Application (O.A.) as a representation, the Tribunal sought to compel the executive to address the "cryptic" nature of the deferment and the financial predicament of the employee through a formal, reasoned decision

It directed the respondents to treat the O.A. and previous representations as a fresh representation for the release of legitimately earned wages

The respondents were ordered to take a decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order

All connected Miscellaneous Applications (M.As) were disposed of accordingly