Authorities must consider regularization claims and parity with similarly situated workers through a reasoned order.

The applicants stated that they had been engaged as casual labourers in the Forest Department and sought consideration for regular engagement/regularization under SRO 520 of 2017 and SRO 64 of 1994.

They relied on a departmental verification process and a list said to include them among workers found eligible or cleared.

After SRO 520 of 2017 was repealed by S.O. 514 of 2023, they submitted a representation dated 19 March 2025 seeking consideration of their cases.

They also relied on an order in O.A. No. 299/2024, which directed consideration of that application as a representation and contemplated similar benefits if the applicants were found covered by the applicable law.

During the hearing, the applicants limited their request to a direction that the respondents treat the present O.A. as a representation and decide it in accordance with law.

1. Whether the applicants’ claims for regular engagement/regularization and for benefit flowing from the order in O.A. No. 299/2024 should be considered by the respondents as a representation.

2. Whether the applicants are similarly situated to those in O.A. No. 299/2024 and are covered by that order and the applicable law, such that corresponding benefits may be considered.

The applicants invoked SRO 520 of 2017, the Jammu and Kashmir Casual and Other Workers—Regular Engagement Rules, 2017, and SRO 64 of 1994 as the basis for their claims; the judgment records these as grounds advanced by the applicants, not as provisions whose application or effect the Tribunal determined on the merits.

The judgment also notes the repeal of SRO 520 of 2017 by S.O. 514 of 2023.

The Tribunal relied on the limited procedural course of directing the competent authority to consider the claims under the applicable rules and law, determine whether the applicants are similarly situated to those in O.A. No. 299/2024, and issue a reasoned decision.

It expressed no view on the merits.

Because the applicants confined their request to consideration of their claims as a representation, and the respondents did not oppose disposal with appropriate directions, the Tribunal concluded that keeping the O.A. pending would serve no useful purpose.

It did not decide whether the applicants qualified for regularization under either SRO or whether the earlier O.A. governed their cases.

Instead, it required the respondents to examine similarity and legal coverage, and to consider corresponding benefits only if the applicants were squarely covered and no legal impediment existed.

The respondents must pass and communicate a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks after service of a certified copy of the judgment.

No order as to costs was made.