Government representations for regularisation of casual laborers must be prioritized despite the repeal of existing rules.

Fifty-five applicants, engaged as casual labourers in the Sindh Forest Division, Ganderbal between 2007 and 2014, sought regularization of their services under SRO 520 of 2017.

An enquiry committee in 2018 found many applicants "fit" for regularization.

The Government subsequently issued S.O. 514 of 2023, which repealed the regularization rules (SRO 64 of 1994 and SRO 520 of 2017) and abated all pending cases.

Following a meeting on December 4, 2023, the respondents decided to disengage the applicants, labeling their engagements "unauthorized" due to a lack of formal appointment orders, and sought to replace them via outsourcing.

The applicants challenged S.O. 514, the disengagement orders, and the outsourcing tender.

1. Whether S.O. 514 of 2023, which repealed regularization rules and abated pending cases, is constitutionally valid.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to regularization and protection against replacement by another set of temporary/outsourced workers despite the lack of formal initial appointment orders.

3. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, given the respondents' claim that casual labor does not constitute a "service matter".

The court considered the definition of "CSLW" (Casual, Seasonal, or other worker) under SRO 520 of 2017, which includes those engaged "through an appointment order or otherwise".

Government's duty to provide fair employment and avoid indefinite temporary engagements as emphasized in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024).

Principles of fairness and dignity in public employment as established in Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025).

The rights of daily rated workers as determined by the High Court of J&K in UT of J&K v. Mohammad Ashraf Khan (2026).

The applicants argued that their long, uninterrupted service (up to 17 years) and their identification as "fit" by a departmental committee created a legitimate expectation of regularization that could not be extinguished by the retrospective effect of S.O. 514.

The respondents contended that the engagements were dehors the rules and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over tender/outsourcing processes.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ counsel expressed satisfaction if the matter was treated as a representation for departmental reconsideration in light of recent judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal avoided a deep dive into the merits of the repeal (S.O. 514) but emphasized that the respondents must consider the case in line with the "lead by example" principle established by the Apex Court regarding stable employment.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to treat the O.A. as a formal representation and decide the applicants' case by passing a speaking order within eight weeks, particularly considering the precedents of Jaggo, Dharam Singh, and Mohammad Ashraf Khan.