Headline: Discontinuation of long-serving worker arbitrary when regularization process initiated under SRO-520.

The applicant, Farida Begum, was initially engaged as a sweeper in the respondent department in 2007, with a formal engagement order issued on July 15, 2008.

She continued to work uninterruptedly and was later appointed as a Cleaner on a consolidated basis via an order dated March 23, 2013.

She was subsequently transferred and attached to Kala Kendra, Jammu, where she continued to perform her duties.

The Government promulgated SRO-520 of 2017 for the regularization of eligible casual workers.

The applicant claimed she completed over ten years of continuous service by July 2018, making her eligible for regularization under these rules.

The departmental authorities initiated the regularization process, calling for documents and forwarding her work and conduct report, along with drawal statements, to the Finance Department on July 29, 2019, for placement before the Empowered Committee constituted under SRO-520 of 2017.

While her regularization case was pending, her wages were allegedly stopped, and after representation, the administrative department directed their release on January 30, 2020.

Subsequently, respondent No. 4 issued a notice dated February 18, 2020, alleging unauthorized attendance and referring to an earlier discontinuation order dated June 21, 2019, which the applicant stated was never communicated to her.

The respondents claimed her engagement was solely need-based, not against a sanctioned post, and was discontinued due to Government Circular No. 30-GAD of 2019, which banned the continuation of casual workers.

The respondents also argued that SRO-520 of 2017 was under scrutiny, and regularization was impermissible based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi.

The Hon'ble High Court had stayed the impugned discontinuation orders dated June 25, 2019, and February 18, 2020, during the pendency of the writ petition.

Whether the discontinuation orders dated June 25, 2019, and February 18, 2020, were arbitrary, procedurally unfair, and liable to be quashed?

Whether the applicant is entitled to have her case for regularization as a Government Service Assistant concluded under SRO-520 of 2017?

Whether the applicant is entitled to the release of her withheld wages?

The Tribunal applied the principles of legitimate expectation and fair administrative action, emphasizing that once an employer initiates and processes a regularization case under applicable rules (SRO-520 of 2017), it creates a legitimate expectation that the matter will be concluded fairly.

It further held that administrative instructions (Circular No. 30-GAD of 2019) cannot defeat an already initiated statutory consideration for regularization, especially for a worker with long continuous service.

The Tribunal also reiterated the principle that the State, as a model employer, must act fairly and transparently in service jurisprudence, even in cases of non-regular appointments, and cannot deny wages for work performed.

The court noted that while respondents cited Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, the applicant was seeking conclusion of an existing regularization process under government-framed rules, not a backdoor entry.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a legitimate expectation for regularization because her case had been officially processed by the administrative department for presentation to the Empowered Committee under SRO-520 of 2017, after she had completed the requisite qualifying service.

It reasoned that a sudden discontinuation based on a general ban circular (Circular No. 30-GAD of 2019) was arbitrary and internally inconsistent when a structured regularization mechanism was already in motion.

Such administrative instructions could not override an already initiated statutory consideration, especially since the department had benefited from her services for years.

The Tribunal distinguished the reliance on Uma Devi by noting that the applicant sought the conclusion of an existing regularization process under government-framed rules, not an entirely fresh, irregular appointment.

The Tribunal also held that the discontinuation, without proper communication or opportunity of hearing, reflected procedural unfairness, violating the principle that a model employer must act fairly.

Regarding wages, the Tribunal concluded that if work was taken, wages could not be withheld, and merely labeling attendance as "unauthorized" was insufficient given the applicant’s long service history and pending regularization.

The interim stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court on the impugned orders further strengthened the finding that the discontinuation could not be sustained.

The Tribunal quashed the impugned orders/notices dated June 25, 2019, and February 18, 2020, which discontinued the applicant's engagement and refrained her from duties.

The respondents were directed to conclude the applicant’s case for regularization as a Government Service Assistant under SRO-520 of 2017, treating her as having completed the requisite ten years of qualifying service effective July 2018, subject to verification, and to pass a reasoned speaking order.

Upon such conclusion, the applicant shall be granted notional regularization from the date of completion of ten years, with monetary benefits (including pay fixation and arrears) after regular appointment.

The respondents were also directed to release the withheld wages for the period the applicant actually worked and her services were utilized, after verifying records, within 12 weeks from the receipt of the order.