Long-serving irregular employees engaged for decades are entitled to regularization and minimum wages.

The applicant, Sanjay Kumar, claims to have been engaged as a Waterman-cum-Sweeper in Government Model Middle School, Mahanpur, District Kathua, on October 28, 1998.

He asserts continuous service since then, marking attendance and performing duties, initially being paid Rs. 500 per year from the School Improvement Fund, which he deemed inadequate and contrary to the Minimum Wages Act.

Despite repeated requests for proper wages and regularization, no action was taken, leading him to file SWP No. 1791/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.

The High Court, via an interim order dated September 2, 2013, directed respondents to consider payment of wages as per the Minimum Wages Act.

Alleging non-compliance, the applicant filed a contempt petition, during which the High Court directed production of records for contingent workers considered for regularization under SRO-308 of 2008.

The applicant further alleged pressure to withdraw his case and non-provision of service records, and that other similarly situated workers, engaged later, were regularized.

The cases were eventually transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, as T.A. No. 187/2024 and T.A. No. 237/2024.

During the pendency of these matters, the respondents issued an order dated December 31, 2024, disengaging the applicant, prompting him to file O.A. No. 404/2025 seeking quashing of the disengagement order, release of withheld wages, and regularization from October 28, 1998, or at least from the date similarly situated employees were regularized under SRO-308 of 2008.

A Contempt Petition No. 207/2025 was also filed alleging non-compliance with Tribunal directions.

The respondents deny formal appointment or engagement, stating he worked as a part-time waterman-cum-sweeper for about one hour daily, paid Rs. 500 annually from the School Improvement Fund, with no valid engagement order.

They claim compliance with the High Court's direction by passing a speaking order dated November 27, 2014, rejecting his claim, and state that Rs. 7,02,210/- was credited to his account as arrears of wages.

Whether the applicant, engaged as a Waterman-cum-Sweeper since October 28, 1998, is entitled to regularization of his services and payment of proper wages.

Whether the impugned order dated December 31, 2024, disengaging the applicant from service during the pendency of litigation, is valid.

Whether the respondents' actions constitute contempt of court for not complying with previous orders regarding wage payment and regularization.

The court primarily applied the principle that irregular appointments, while generally not regularized, may warrant equitable consideration in cases of long and continuous service, as established in *State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi* (2006) 4 SCC 1.

It further relied on *Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand* (2018) 8 SCC 238, holding that employees with rendered long service should not be arbitrarily denied regularization if their work is permanent.

The court also invoked the principle that the State cannot exploit workers' helplessness by extracting long service without fair wages or proper benefits, as held in *Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India* (1988) 1 SCC 122.

Additionally, it applied the doctrine from *People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India* (1982) 3 SCC 235, stating that payment below minimum wages constitutes forced labor under Article 23 of the Constitution.

The court also referred to SRO-308 of 2008 as a policy governing regularization of contingent workers.

The court noted the undisputed fact that the applicant had been working in the school since 1998, demonstrating over two decades of continuous service acknowledged by the authorities.

This long tenure indicated a continuous need for his services, contradicting the respondents' claim of merely part-time engagement.

Applying the precedents from *Uma Devi* and *Narendra Kumar Tiwari*, the court reasoned that despite any initial irregularity in engagement, the extraction of such long service by the department warranted equitable consideration for regularization.

The court further found the payment of Rs. 500 per year for decades to be grossly inadequate and contrary to the Minimum Wages Act, aligning with the principles against forced labor laid down in *Daily Rated Casual Labour* and *People’s Union for Democratic Rights*.

The court also criticized the respondents for issuing the disengagement order dated December 31, 2024, during the pendency of the litigation, deeming it an unwarranted and unsustainable action.

Although the respondents claimed compliance with the High Court's minimum wage direction by releasing arrears of Rs. 7,02,210/-, the core issue of regularization remained unresolved.

It quashed and set aside the impugned order dated December 31, 2024, disengaging the applicant from service.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant forthwith and allow him to continue as Waterman-cum-Sweeper or against an equivalent Class-IV post.

Furthermore, the respondents were directed to regularize the applicant in terms of applicable policies, including SRO-308 of 2008, within three months, considering his service since 1998.

The applicant is entitled to minimum wages for the period worked, with adjustments for amounts already paid.

Contempt Petition No. 207/2025 was closed, and notices discharged, as the directions regarding wage payment were substantially complied with.