Long-serving irregular employees performing perennial duties are entitled to regularization and equal pay.

The applicants (Shishu Paul, Bhag Singh, Chander Shakher, and Swaran Singh) sought regularization and equivalent pay for their work as casual labourers/Community Participation Workers in the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department, Nowshera.

They claimed continuous service for several years, discharging duties similar to "Turn Cock" and other equivalent posts, but receiving meagre wages of Rs. 500/- per month from 2003-2010 and then Rs. 3,750/- per month.

They asserted their engagement was continuous and not seasonal, and they had completed over ten years of service, entitling them to regularization and fair wages.

The respondents contended that the applicants were not entitled to regularization under SRO-64 of 1994, as they were engaged after the cut-off date of 31.03.1994, and were primarily Community Participation Workers paid on a need basis.

However, the respondents admitted that the applicants' cases had been referred to higher authorities for consideration under SRO 520 of 2017.

This matter originated as SWP No. 3489/2014 in the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal as T.A. No. 7852/2021.

Whether the applicants, engaged for over a decade in continuous service performing duties of a regular and perennial nature, are entitled to regularization and equal pay protection.

Whether the respondents can deny regularization based solely on their classification as casual/Community Participation Workers and the cut-off date under SRO-64 of 1994, despite referring their cases under SRO 520 of 2017.

The Tribunal applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding regularization of long-serving irregular employees and the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work."

Specifically, it referenced *Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3)*, (2006) 4 SCC 1, which permits regularization of employees with ten years or more of service against sanctioned posts.

This principle was clarified in *State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari*, (2010) 9 SCC 247, emphasizing regularization as a one-time measure for appointees with over ten years of continuous service where the appointment is irregular but not illegal.

The doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution was applied, citing *State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh*, (2017) 1 SCC 148, which holds that temporary employees performing duties similar to regular employees are entitled to minimum regular pay scale.

Further, *Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India*, (1988) 1 SCC 122, and *State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh*, (1992) 4 SCC 118, were cited for the equitable obligation of the State to regularize long-serving ad hoc employees.

The Tribunal found that the applicants satisfied the essential conditions for regularization under the *Umadevi* and *M.L. Kesari* principles, having provided long continuous service exceeding ten years without allegations of fraud and performing work of a perennial nature.

The respondents' reliance on the 31.03.1994 cut-off date under SRO-64 of 1994 was deemed an insufficient shield, especially considering that the department itself had referred the applicants' cases for consideration under SRO 520 of 2017, acknowledging the need to address irregular engagements.

The Tribunal emphasized that "substance prevails over form," meaning the nomenclature ("casual labourer" or "Community Participation Worker") could not defeat substantive rights given the continuous, full-time, and perennial nature of work extracted from them.

The Tribunal also applied the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work," noting that the applicants were performing duties akin to Turn Cocks, a regular post with higher remuneration.

Paying meagre honorarium for identical work was found to be hostile discrimination and constitutionally impermissible.

The argument of administrative burden due to thousands of similarly situated workers was rejected as not being a constitutional defence.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants against available sanctioned posts of Turn Cock or equivalent posts within four months, subject to verification of eligibility.

If sanctioned vacancies were not available, supernumerary posts were to be created as a one-time measure.

The applicants were deemed entitled to wages at par with the minimum of the pay scale of Turn Cock from the date of filing the original writ petition, and their seniority was to be fixed notionally from the date of completion of ten years of continuous service.

The entire exercise was to be completed within four months.