Facts
The applicant was engaged as a daily wage worker by the J&K Forest Department on November 30, 1993
Source reference: p. 2Having completed seven years of continuous service by November 30, 2000, he claimed entitlement to regularization under applicable service norms and policy
Source reference: p. 2Despite repeated representations and an inter-departmental communication dated September 18, 2018, which recognized his eligibility and the creation of "Helper" posts for left-out workers, the respondents failed to regularize his services
Source reference: p. 3The applicant superannuated on March 30, 2024, after nearly 31 years of service, without receiving pensionary or regularization benefits
Source reference: p. 3He approached the Tribunal seeking retrospective regularization and consequential benefits, citing parity with similarly situated employees who were regularized via court orders
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective regularization of service effective from the date he completed seven years of daily wage service
Source reference: p. 22. Whether the respondents’ failure to decide the applicant’s long-pending representation violates the principles of service law and parity with similarly situated employees
Source reference: p. 4-5Law Applied
The court relied on the policy of regularization for Daily Rated Workers who have completed seven years of continuous service
Source reference: p. 2It applied the principle of parity as established in State of J&K & Ors. v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail & Ors. [2013 (91) SLJ 73] and State of J&K & Ors. v. Tariq Haffiz [LPASW No. 197/2017], which mandate consistent application of regularization norms
Source reference: p. 5Furthermore, the court cited the precedent of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagoo v. Union of India & Ors. regarding the adjudication of service benefits for long-term employees
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had rendered uninterrupted service from 1993 until his retirement in 2024
Source reference: p. 5It observed that the respondents had failed to file a reply despite multiple opportunities and a "mercy chance," necessitating the virtual appearance of the Conservator of Forests
Source reference: p. 4The court analyzed the applicant's claim for parity, noting that other workers (Nawab-Ud-Din and Tariq Hafiz) had been regularized under similar circumstances through judicial intervention
Source reference: p. 3By directing the respondents to consider the inter-departmental communication from 2018 and relevant judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal emphasized that administrative inaction cannot indefinitely deprive an employee of their statutory or policy-based entitlements, especially post-superannuation
Source reference: p. 5-6Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. without commenting on the final merits, directing the respondents to decide the applicant’s case in accordance with law and applicable merits
The respondents are ordered to pass a speaking order within eight weeks, taking into specific account the applicant's service history (1993–2024), his entitlement to regularization benefits, and the cited precedents of the J&K High Court and the Supreme Court
Source reference: p. 6All connected Miscellaneous Applications were closed
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
Mohammad Maqbool HajamvsForest Department
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in