Engagement prior to cut-off date and continuous service entitles regularization, even posthumously with benefits to legal heirs.

The petitioners are the widow (Petitioner No. 1) and son (Petitioner No. 2) of the late Sh. Kewel Krishan.

Sh. Kewel Krishan was engaged on a daily wage basis in the Social Forestry Department, Rajouri, in December 1993.

His employment was disengaged on August 31, 2004, on the grounds that he was engaged after January 31, 1994.

He challenged this disengagement in SWP No. 1678/2004, and the High Court stayed the order, allowing him to continue working.

This writ petition was clubbed with OWP No. 1918/2004 and decided on April 7, 2008, quashing the disengagement order and directing reconsideration after hearing affected persons, while maintaining their status.

The petitioners claim Sh. Kewel Krishan continuously worked from December 1, 1993, completing seven years of service by November 30, 2000, and was therefore entitled to regularization under SRO-64 of 1994.

The department processed his case for regularization, but a communication dated December 25, 2012, incorrectly showed his engagement date as March 1, 1994.

Sh. Kewel Krishan died on August 27, 2013, while on duty.

Petitioner No. 2 applied for compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994, which was forwarded by the Divisional Forest Officer but no decision was made.

The respondents stated that Sh. Kewel Krishan was engaged on a need basis in December 1993 and subsequently shown as a casual labourer from March 1, 1994.

The Finance Department returned proposals for regularization of 19 workers, including Sh. Kewel Krishan, observing they were not eligible under SRO-64 of 1994 and could only be enlisted as casual labourers.

Whether late Sh. Kewel Krishan was entitled to regularization of his services under SRO-64 of 1994, having completed seven years of continuous service?

Whether the death of an employee before the issuance of a regularization order can defeat the right to regularization and consequential benefits that had accrued during his lifetime?

Whether the legal heirs of late Sh. Kewel Krishan are entitled to retiral benefits and compassionate appointment for Petitioner No. 2 under SRO-43 of 1994, notwithstanding the absence of a formal regularization order during his lifetime?

The Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules, 1994 (SRO-64 of 1994) for regularization of services.

The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 (SRO-43 of 1994) concerning compassionate appointment.

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir's ruling in *State of J&K vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail* (2012 (4) JKJ 1051) held that continuous engagement for a long period means a worker cannot be termed a casual labourer based on nomenclature.

The Supreme Court's observation in *State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh* (1992) 4 SCC 118, where continuous service for a long period raises a presumption of regular requirement of services.

The Tribunal distinguished *Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi* (AIR 2006 SC 1806) by affirming the applicability of existing regularization schemes for eligible workers.

The Tribunal found that Sh. Kewel Krishan was engaged prior to April 1, 1994, and had continuously worked for the department.

The respondents’ claim that he was merely a casual labourer was rejected, citing *State of J&K vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail* (2012 (4) JKJ 1051) which established that long-term continuous engagement prevents a worker from being termed casual, and *State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh* (1992) 4 SCC 118, which holds such service presumes a regular requirement.

The Tribunal noted the factual similarity with T.A. No. 61/5158/2021, relating to the same department, where workers continuously employed and paid daily wages were deemed entitled to regularization under SRO-64 of 1994.

It held that the employee’s death could not defeat a right to regularization that had accrued during his lifetime, especially as he completed seven years of continuous service, thus becoming eligible under SRO-64 of 1994.

The failure of the department to formalize regularization was not allowed to prejudice his legal heirs, and the Tribunal opined that benefits could be granted notionally.

Consequently, it held that the dependents could not be denied consideration for compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994, as the application was timely and his services were liable for regularization.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to treat late Sh. Kewel Krishan as eligible for regularization under SRO-64 of 1994 from the date he completed seven years of continuous service.

His services are to be notionally regularized from that date, and all consequential benefits calculated.

Upon such notional regularization, his last pay is to be fixed, and retiral benefits (gratuity, leave encashment, etc.) are to be released to Petitioner No. 1 (widow).

The respondents were also directed to process and decide Petitioner No. 2's case for compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994 in accordance with rules.

This entire exercise is to be completed within three months from the receipt of the order.