Casual labourers cannot claim regularization without documentary proof of continuous service and subsisting engagement.

Thirty-nine applicants claimed to have been engaged as Need Based Casual Labourers in the Jal Shakti Department on different dates from 2006–2007 and to have continuously worked thereafter. They relied on departmental verification exercises, Aadhaar-based biometric identification proceedings, departmental communications, and nominal muster rolls to claim recognition of their engagement, regularisation under SRO 520 of 2017, payment of wages, and uploading of their particulars on the Aadhaar-based biometric system.

The applicants had earlier filed SWP No. 2712/2018, which was transferred to the Tribunal as T.A. No. 926/2021. The Tribunal directed the respondents to release wages for the period actually worked and to consider the applicants’ cases for Aadhaar-based biometric identification if the scheme remained operational.

Pursuant thereto, the Executive Engineer passed an order dated 02 June 2023 rejecting the applicants’ claims. The applicants challenged that order in the present Original Application.

The respondents contended that none of the applicants was presently working in the Department, that no valid documentary proof of engagement or continuous service was available, and that the applicants were not included in the registered list of casual labourers.

The Tribunal noted that the documents relied upon by the applicants did not include their engagement orders but consisted principally of formats for submission of details and nominal muster rolls pertaining only to October 2007, March 2008, and January 2009.

Whether the applicants were presently working in the Jal Shakti Department and, if so, whether their legitimately earned wages had been paid?

Whether the applicants fulfilled the eligibility requirements for regularisation under SRO 520 of 2017, including ten years of continuous working or the applicable period of seasonal service?

Whether the respondents were legally bound to upload the applicants’ particulars on the Aadhaar-Based Biometric Identification and Skill Profiling system?

Whether the applicants were entitled to treatment equivalent to the petitioners in SWP No. 2354/2016 and SWP No. 2186/2018?

Whether the consideration order dated 02 June 2023 complied with the Tribunal’s directions in T.A. No. 926/2021 and was liable to be quashed?

The Tribunal applied SRO 520 of 2017, namely the Jammu and Kashmir Casual and Other Workers—Regular Engagement Rules, 2017.

Under Rule 2(f), “continuous working” requires service after initial engagement without a break, except for holidays, Sundays, and limited breaks; Rule 4 requires, inter alia, ten years of continuous working, satisfactory conduct, and continuation in the Department on the relevant date for regular engagement.

The Tribunal held that administrative verification, forwarding of particulars, or physical parade does not by itself create an enforceable right to regularisation.

It relied on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which prohibits regularisation that would circumvent the constitutional scheme of public appointments.

Nand Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 5 SCC 300, which holds that regularisation or absorption is not automatic and must conform to the applicable rules.

It also relied on Mushtaq Ahmad Khan v. Union Territory of J&K, where the principle was recognised that engagement or continuation as a casual labourer cannot be claimed as a matter of right, particularly where the Department does not require the services.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to establish continuous service for the period required by SRO 520 of 2017.

The nominal muster rolls covered only three months—October 2007, March 2008, and January 2009—and did not prove ten years of continuous working or 120 months of qualifying engagement.

The applicants also failed to produce reliable engagement orders or other definitive documentary evidence such as complete muster rolls, wage slips, or bank records establishing their continued service.

Although the Department had conducted verification and called for particulars, the Tribunal held that such administrative steps were merely part of the decision-making process and did not establish eligibility for regularisation or create a right to biometric uploading.

The claim for parity with SWP No. 2186/2018 was rejected because, in that case, the respondent Department had admitted that the petitioner was working as a casual labourer, whereas the present respondents specifically denied that any applicant was presently working in the Department.

The Tribunal further held that the respondents had complied with the earlier direction by considering or paying wages for the period actually worked, and that the impugned order was neither arbitrary nor perverse.

They were also not similarly situated to the petitioner in SWP No. 2186/2018.

The challenge to the consideration order dated 02 June 2023 was dismissed, and O.A. No. 706/2023 was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, interim directions were vacated, and there was no order as to costs.