Long-serving irregular employees performing continuous work are entitled to regularization and minimum wages.

The applicant, Sanjay Kumar, was engaged on October 28, 1998, as a Waterman-cum-Sweeper in Government Model Middle School, Mahanpur, District Kathua, and claimed continuous employment since that date.

He alleged that he was paid only ₹500 per year from the School Improvement Fund, which was grossly inadequate and contrary to the Minimum Wages Act.

Despite performing duties similar to other Class-IV employees, his services were not regularized, and he was not paid proper wages.

Aggrieved, he filed SWP No. 1791/2013 before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, seeking regularization and consequential benefits.

On September 2, 2013, the High Court interimly directed respondents to consider payment of wages as per the Minimum Wages Act.

Alleging non-compliance, he filed a contempt petition, where the High Court directed the production of records for contingent paid workers considered under SRO-308 of 2008.

He asserted that several workers engaged later were regularized, but his case was ignored.

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

While these were pending, the respondents issued an order dated December 31, 2024, disengaging his services.

This led the applicant to file O.A. No. 404/2025 challenging the disengagement order, seeking release of withheld wages and regularization, and a Contempt Petition No. 207/2025 for non-compliance.

The respondents denied formal appointment, claiming the applicant was a part-time waterman-cum-sweeper working about one hour daily and paid ₹500 annually from the School Improvement Fund.

They asserted that he lacked a valid engagement order and failed to satisfy the conditions for regularization under SRO-308 of 2008.

However, the respondents admitted that ₹7,02,210 was credited to the applicant’s bank account as arrears of wages during the proceedings.

Whether the applicant, having served continuously since 1998, is entitled to regularization of his services and payment of proper wages.

Whether the impugned order dated December 31, 2024, disengaging the applicant during the pendency of litigation, is sustainable in law.

Whether the respondents have complied with the previous directions regarding payment of wages to the applicant.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning regularization of irregular appointments and fair labor practices, specifically citing State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which, while generally disallowing regularization of irregular appointments, recognized the need for equitable consideration in cases of long and continuous service.

It also referred to Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand (2018) 8 SCC 238, which held that employees rendering long and continuous service should not be arbitrarily denied regularization for permanent work.

Further, the Tribunal invoked Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 122, highlighting that the State cannot exploit workers for years without fair wages or service benefits.

And People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235, which equated payment below minimum wages to forced labor under Article 23 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal also acknowledged SRO-308 of 2008 as an applicable policy for regularization of contingent workers.

The Tribunal noted the undisputed fact that the applicant had been working in the school since 1998, a period exceeding twenty-five years, and his work was acknowledged by the authorities.

Despite the respondents' claim of part-time engagement and lack of formal appointment, the continuous nature of his service demonstrated the institutional requirement for his duties.

The Tribunal found the annual payment of ₹500 highly inadequate and contrary to the Minimum Wages Act, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance against extracting long service without fair wages.

The Tribunal applied the precedents of Uma Devi and Narendra Kumar Tiwari to hold that while initial engagement might be irregular, decades of continuous service warrant equitable consideration for regularization, especially when the work is of a permanent nature.

The Tribunal further criticized the respondents' action of disengaging the applicant via the December 31, 2024, order during the pendency of the litigation, considering it an act of undue haste and unsustainable in law.

Regarding wages, the Tribunal acknowledged that the respondents had substantially complied with the High Court's directions by crediting ₹7,02,210 as arrears, thus no further action was needed in the contempt petition.

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 as Waterman-cum-Sweeper or against an equivalent Class-IV post.

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

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

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