Eligible workers cannot be denied SRO 64 regularization solely because records classify them as casual labourers.

The four applicants were engaged by the Rural Development Department between 1988 and 1990 and claimed continuous service.

They sought regularization under SRO 64 of 1994, relying on their service records and departmental communications forwarding their cases for regularization.

After the High Court directed the respondents to examine their claims, the Government rejected them by Order No. 83-RD & PR of 2019 dated 21 February 2019, principally on the ground that the applicants were casual labourers rather than daily-rated workers covered by SRO 64.

The applicants challenged that order before the Tribunal; the respondents also relied on the absence of formal appointment orders and Umadevi.

1. Whether the applicants could be denied regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 merely because departmental records described them as labourers or casual labourers, despite their long service and departmental records.

2. Whether the applicants were entitled to regularization and consequential service benefits, or whether the matter should be remitted for further departmental consideration.

SRO 64 of 1994 was treated as the applicable scheme for regularization of qualifying workers engaged before 31 March 1994, subject to completion of the prescribed qualifying service.

The Tribunal recognized the general principles in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, that long service alone does not create a right to regularization and public employment should ordinarily follow a lawful recruitment process; it considered those principles alongside the specific scheme and the High Court decisions concerning SRO 64.

Relying on UT of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sajjad Ahmed Wani, 2026:JKLHC-JMU:505-DB; UT of J&K v. Sukh Dev, 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2541-DB; and UT of J&K v. Rattan Chand, 2025:JKLHC-JMU:4179-DB, the Tribunal stated that an employee’s actual work and continuity of service, rather than the label used in departmental records or the absence of a formal appointment order alone, may determine the nature of the engagement.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had served for decades, were paid through departmental muster sheets, had been deployed in government offices, and had previously been forwarded for regularization.

The respondents did not establish that their work was merely occasional.

Applying the cited High Court decisions, the Tribunal held that the description “labourer” or “casual labourer” and the absence of formal appointment orders were insufficient, by themselves, to defeat claims under SRO 64.

It found the 2019 rejection inadequate because it did not properly address the service records, prior recommendations, or treatment of similarly situated workers.

Given the history of the claims and repeated rejection on the same grounds, the Tribunal declined to remit the matter for another open-ended decision.

It directed the respondents to regularize each applicant under SRO 64 from the date the applicant completed the qualifying service, subject to verification of relevant dates; the applicants’ classification as labourers or casual labourers could not be used to deny relief.

It also directed consideration of consequential service and retiral benefits under the applicable rules, completion of any necessary post-sanction formalities, and implementation within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.