Lawful engagement by a competent authority is a prerequisite for claiming wages or regularization in public service.

The 100 petitioners, residents of Tehsil Mendhar, claimed to have worked for several years as casual/need-based laborers in the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department

They alleged that despite continuous service, their wages remained unpaid for approximately three years

The petitioners relied on a communication dated 23.10.2017 from the Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) listing them as workers

the issuance of departmental identity cards [para. 3(e)], and their inclusion in the biometric attendance system

Conversely, the respondents issued Order No. 2 dated 23.06.2019 (erroneously cited as 2018 in parts of the pleadings), rejecting the petitioners' claims for wages on the grounds that they were never engaged by a competent authority

The matter was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir to the Central Administrative Tribunal

1. Whether the petitioners established a legal right to wages and regularization in the absence of formal appointment orders issued by a competent authority

2. Whether administrative documents, such as communications by an Assistant Executive Engineer, identity cards, or biometric attendance records, constitute a valid legal source of public employment

3. Whether the impugned order dated 23.06.2019, which rejected the petitioners' claims, was arbitrary or legally infirm

The Tribunal primarily applied the constitutional principles of public employment under Articles 14 and 16, emphasizing that equality is violated by illegal entry into service

It relied heavily on the landmark precedent Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, which established that regularization cannot be granted to persons appointed dehors the constitutional scheme or without following due recruitment process

The Tribunal also applied the principle that service status cannot be founded on sympathy or unauthorized administrative notes but requires a valid source of right, such as a sanction against a post or a selection process

The Tribunal found that the petitioners failed to produce any foundational documents of employment, such as appointment orders, selection records, or official muster rolls maintained in the regular course of business

It reasoned that the AEE lacked the competence to engage workers or bind the State through correspondence; thus, his communication could not serve as a "legal charter of employment"

Regarding identity cards and biometric attendance, the Tribunal categorized these as "collateral circumstances" or "incidental acts" that do not confer legal status in the absence of a lawful appointment under the rules

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the petition was a "collective omnibus" filing that lacked individual particulars regarding dates of work or nature of duties for each of the 100 petitioners, making it unsuitable for writ-style relief

It concluded that where foundational facts are seriously disputed, the Tribunal cannot conduct a roving factual enquiry to declare employment status

The Tribunal answered the issues by stating that unauthorized entry into public service through the "backdoor" creates no enforceable right to wages or permanency, and administrative inconsistencies in subordinate paperwork do not override the requirement for legal appointment

The prayer to quash Order No. 2 dated 23.06.2019 and the demand for unpaid salary were denied

No order as to costs