Decades of continuous service entitle irregular employees to regularization, superseding technical objections regarding initial appointment.

The applicant was engaged as a Caller/Class-IV employee at Government Middle School, Pul Doda, on September 7, 1992, via a formal order by the District Education Officer on a consolidated wage.

She performed continuous service for over 27 years, discharging duties including cleaning, maintenance, and assisting staff.

Her wages were enhanced in 1996, and her case was recommended for confirmation by the Chief Education Officer in 2003.

Despite the notification of SRO 308 of 2008, which reserved a 50% quota for regularizing contingent workers, a Divisional Level Committee rejected her case.

The respondents argued that her initial appointment was not through a regular recruitment process and that she was below 18 years of age at the time of her initial engagement in 1992.

The matter was transferred from the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir to the Central Administrative Tribunal.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization in the Class-IV cadre after rendering nearly three decades of continuous service

2. Whether the State can deny regularization on technical grounds, such as the applicant being a minor at the time of initial engagement, after extracting work for 27 years

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to back wages and retiral benefits

The Tribunal primarily applied Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Constitution of India.

It relied on the landmark judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), which prohibits backdoor entries but permits the regularization of "irregular" (not illegal) appointments as a one-time measure for employees with over ten years of service.

This was read alongside State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, which clarified the "one-time measure" exception.

The Tribunal further applied the "model employer" doctrine from Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand and the principle from Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana, which prevents the State from denying relief on technical grounds after long periods of service.

Statutory reliance was placed on SRO 308 of 2008 (J&K).

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s service was neither clandestine nor unauthorized, as it was based on a formal written order and supported by maintained attendance and service records.

Regarding the respondent's plea that the applicant was a minor in 1992, the Tribunal held that the State cannot take advantage of its own lapse after 27 years of service, citing the right to livelihood under Article 21.

The court determined that the applicant fell within the exception carved out in Umadevi and M.L. Kesari because her appointment was "irregular" rather than "illegal" and she had completed more than 16 years of service by the time SRO 308 was enacted.

The Tribunal criticized the Committee's rejection of her case as arbitrary and unsupported by a reasoned order, concluding that keeping sanctioned Class-IV posts vacant while extracting full-time work from the applicant amounted to exploitation.

Regularization shall take effect notionally from September 8, 2002 (upon completion of 10 years of service) for all service benefits.

Monetary benefits on the regular pay scale shall be paid from three years prior to the filing of the writ petition.

The entire service from September 8, 1992, shall be counted toward pensionary and retiral benefits.

Compliance must be ensured within three months.