Continuous casual service beyond seven years entitles workers to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994.

Late Jai Paul was engaged as an Orderly on a casual and temporary basis on 28 July 1994 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua. He continued working with the respondents until his death in harness on 8 November 2024.

In 1997, he was assigned duties against a permanent post vacated by the retirement of another Orderly. Although he was paid salary from 1 October 2001, he was not paid for the period from 1 August 1997 to 30 September 2001.

His case for regularization was repeatedly recommended by the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, including pursuant to directions issued by the High Court in SWP No. 1231/1997, but no formal regularization order was passed.

After his death, his wife and elder son sought retrospective regularization, consequential benefits and family pension, along with compassionate appointment for the son under SRO 43 of 1994.

1. Whether Late Jai Paul was entitled to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 from the date on which he completed seven years of continuous service, despite his initial designation as a casual or temporary worker?

2. Whether the denial of regularization to Jai Paul, while granting service benefits to similarly situated employees, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?

3. Whether the deceased employee’s son was entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994?

The Tribunal applied SRO 64 of 1994, the J&K Daily Rated Workers/Work-Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules, 1994, under which eligible daily-rated or work-charged employees could be regularized upon completion of seven years of continuous service.

It applied the principle that prolonged and uninterrupted engagement of a worker indicates a regular and continuing need for the services, and that an employee cannot be denied regularization merely because the Department described the engagement as “casual”.

The Tribunal relied on State of J&K v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail, Ghar Singh v. University of Jammu, and Ashok Kumar v. State of J&K, which distinguish occasional casual labour from continuously engaged daily-rated work and recognize entitlement to regularization after the requisite period of service.

It also relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, emphasizing that government departments should not use temporary employment arrangements indefinitely to avoid stable employment obligations.

Article 14 prohibited discriminatory treatment between similarly situated employees.

For compassionate appointment, the Tribunal applied SRO 43 of 1994 and relied on Sureksha Rani v. State of J&K, Bikramjeet Singh v. State of J&K, and Mohammad Rafiq Tandyal v. UT of J&K, holding that a dependent may be considered for compassionate appointment where the deceased daily-rated worker had acquired a right to consideration for regularization before death.

The Tribunal found that Jai Paul had worked continuously for over 28 years and had completed the seven-year qualifying period in 2001.

His long, uninterrupted service, assignment against a permanent post, payment of salary from a separate account head, maintenance of a GPF account, inclusion in the seniority list and consideration for promotion demonstrated that, in substance, he was being treated as a regular employee.

The respondents’ plea that his engagement was merely casual and lacked prior approval from higher authorities was not accepted as a legally sustainable justification, particularly when the Department itself had repeatedly recommended his regularization and had extended comparable benefits to similarly situated employees.

The differential treatment was therefore held arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14.

Since Jai Paul had acquired a right to regularization before his death and had died in harness while his case remained pending, the Tribunal held that his son’s claim for compassionate appointment was required to be considered under SRO 43 of 1994.

The respondents were directed to regularize Late Jai Paul’s services from the date on which he completed seven years of continuous service under SRO 64 of 1994 and to issue a formal regularization order.

They were further directed to compute and release the salary arrears and consequential service benefits, including arrears for the period from 1 August 1997 to 30 September 2001, and to extend family-pension benefits to applicant No. 1 in accordance with the rules.

The respondents were also directed to consider and process applicant No. 2’s claim for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994.

The entire exercise was ordered to be completed within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, with no order as to costs.