Long-serving temporary employees deserve humanitarian consideration for regularization, with their existing service status protected pending decision.

The applicant was engaged as a Junior Assistant on an ad hoc basis for 89 days in 1995, with successive extensions, and claimed to have continued in service thereafter.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the respondents to consider his claim for regularisation under the Jammu & Kashmir Government Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 and other applicable rules and government orders.

His case was subsequently considered for regularisation against a migrant vacancy as Election Assistant (Junior Scale), but was rejected, and discontinuance of his services was proposed.

The applicant challenged Government Order No. 04-Elec of 2016 dated 4 February 2016 and the consequential communication dated 8 February 2016, seeking quashing of those orders, continuation in service, and regularisation with retrospective consequential benefits.

On 2 March 2016, the High Court stayed the operation of the impugned Government Order and communication and directed that the applicant be allowed to continue and be paid in accordance with the rules.

The writ petition was later transferred to the Tribunal in 2020.

The respondents opposed regularisation on the ground that the applicant’s initial appointment was void and that he had not been appointed through a valid selection procedure.

During the pendency of the proceedings, however, the applicant continued to work and receive salary; a duty certificate showed that he had attended duty in July 2026.

The applicant also alleged discriminatory treatment by relying on the regularisation of another employee, Sushil Kumar Tickoo.

1. Whether, in view of the applicant’s continuous service since 1995 and the subsisting interim order permitting his continuation, the respondents should reconsider his claim for regularisation despite objections regarding the legality of his initial appointment

2. Whether the applicant’s continued service, legitimate expectation, humanitarian circumstances, and the State’s obligation to act as a model employer warranted protection of his existing status pending consideration of regularisation

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to consideration for release of salary legitimately earned during the period of his continued service

The Tribunal relied on the Jammu & Kashmir Government Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 and the applicable service rules and government orders as the framework governing consideration of regularisation.

It applied the principle that an unmodified and unchallenged judicial order permitting continuation in service remains operative and must be respected.

The Tribunal also invoked the constitutional value of fairness under Article 21, the doctrine of legitimate expectation, humanitarian considerations, and the principle that the Government must act as a model employer, particularly where an employee has served for a prolonged period.

Reliance was placed on Jaggo v. Union of India, concerning the unfair exploitation of temporary employees through prolonged contractual or ad hoc engagement.

Reliance was placed on the judgments cited as Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. and Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had continued in service for more than three decades and that the High Court’s order dated 2 March 2016, directing his continuation and payment in accordance with the rules, had never been challenged, modified, or vacated by the respondents.

Although the respondents disputed the legality of his original ad hoc appointment, the Tribunal considered his uninterrupted service, present continuation, and the State’s prolonged acceptance of his work as circumstances requiring a fresh and humane consideration of his case.

Applying the principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and model-employer conduct, the Tribunal did not itself declare the applicant entitled to regularisation as Election Assistant or Junior Assistant.

Instead, it directed the respondents to consider his regularisation against any Class IV post, while taking into account the cited law and the peculiar circumstances of his long service.

The Tribunal also directed that his existing status remain undisturbed until such consideration was completed and required the respondents to consider payment of salary legitimately earned by him.

The respondents were directed to reconsider his case for regularisation against any Class IV post, having regard to his service since 1995, the applicable law, and humanitarian considerations, and to decide the matter within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

Until the decision was taken, the applicant’s existing status was not to be disturbed.

The respondents were also directed to consider release of the salary legitimately earned by him in accordance with law.