Daily-rated workers entitled to retrospective regularization and monetary benefits after seven years of continuous service.

Thirty-five applicants were engaged as Daily Rated Workers (DRWs)/PDL/TDL in the Power Development Department between 1993 and 2004.

They claimed entitlement to regularization from the date they completed seven years of continuous service under the Daily Rated Workers/Work Charge Employees (Regularization) Rules, 1994 (SRO 64 of 1994).

Their services were eventually regularized prospectively via Order No. CEJ/DPC/19 of 2013 dated 18.12.2013, placing them in the pay scale of Rs. 4440–7440 + GP 1300 under the J&K Power Development Department (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1981 (SRO 381-PDD of 1981).

The applicants sought retrospective regularization and monetary benefits from the date of completing seven years, citing parity with similarly situated employees who received such benefits.

They initially approached the High Court in SWP No. 2105/2017, which directed respondents to consider their claim.

The department rejected their claim for retrospective regularization via Order No. CEJ/DPC/Court/45 of 2017 dated 26.12.2017, primarily due to non-availability of posts until 2013.

The respondents reiterated this rejection in Order No. CEJPDCL/Lit/22 of 2023 dated 07.08.2023, following further directions from the High Court and the Tribunal.

The respondents argued that the applicants were engaged after a 1994 ban, hence not eligible under SRO 64 of 1994, and their regularization in 2013 was prospective, based on a Cabinet decision and against available vacancies.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to retrospective regularization from the date of completion of seven years of continuous service, along with consequential monetary and notional benefits, despite their prospective regularization in 2013?

2. Whether the reasons for rejecting retrospective regularization, namely non-availability of posts and prospective application of Cabinet Decision No. 151/23/2012, are legally sustainable?

The court applied principles of service jurisprudence regarding regularization of daily-rated/work-charged employees, emphasizing that where continuous work is taken for long periods and services are eventually regularized, the employer cannot deny benefits solely due to "no posts".

It referenced State of J&K & Ors. v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail & Ors. (2012 (4) JKJ 1051), which held that for regularization, the government cannot defeat claims by merely stating there are no sanctioned posts, as regularization frameworks contemplate post-creation/adjustment.

The Tribunal also implicitly applied principles against hostile discrimination and administrative actions taking advantage of their own wrong (delay).

The Tribunal found that the applicants' continuous engagement and eventual regularization in 2013 acknowledged their utility and eligibility, despite the delay.

The respondents' defense of "non-availability of posts till 2013" was not accepted as a "permanent shield" to deny benefits, as the administration has mechanisms for creating/adjusting posts, particularly when the need for services is regular and engagement is not sporadic.

The court noted the Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail decision supporting this view.

The plea of parity with other similarly situated employees who received retrospective regularization strengthened the applicants' case, as the State, as a model employer, cannot apply different standards without rational basis, leading to hostile discrimination.

The Tribunal also held that a Cabinet decision mandating prospective regularization could not erase the consequences of years of continuous service or justify differential treatment when the department itself caused delays.

The repeated rejection orders failed to address the core aspects of long continuous service, parity, and the administration's responsibility for delay.

Therefore, the denial of regularization recognition from the seven-year completion dates was deemed unsustainable.

The respondents were directed to treat the petitioners as having been brought on regular establishment from the date each completed seven years of continuous service from initial engagement, and to issue a composite speaking order detailing applicant-wise "seven-year completion date" and consequential regularization date.

Consequential benefits, including notional seniority/continuity from the seven-year completion dates, pay fixation with re-fixation of increments, and monetary arrears, were ordered.

Monetary arrears are to be released from three years prior to the filing of the original writ petition (SWP/WP(C) 2110/2019) or from the date of completion of seven years, whichever is later, while other benefits operate from the seven-year completion dates.

The entire exercise is to be completed within 12 weeks of judgment receipt, with arrears released within a further 8 weeks.

No order as to costs was made.