Long-term continuous service mandates regularization and wage payment notwithstanding procedural flaws in initial appointment.

The applicants, residents of District Ramban, donated private land between 2003 and 2010 for the construction of Panchayat Ghars.

They allege this was done on the assurance of permanent departmental employment, and no monetary compensation was paid.

Pursuant to Government Orders in 2003 and 2010, the applicants were engaged as Mali-cum-Chowkidars and have served continuously for over a decade.

Despite this, the respondents neither regularized their services nor paid consistent wages.

The matter was transferred from the High Court of J&K, which had previously issued an interim direction on January 23, 2020, for the release of wages—a direction the applicants claim was willfully disobeyed, leading to contempt proceedings.

The respondents contended the engagements were unauthorized (made by Sarpanchs) and that land donors are only entitled to compensation, not employment.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regularization of their services and release of withheld wages based on their continuous service exceeding ten years and their status as land donors.

2. Whether the respondents can deny benefits to the applicants on the grounds that their initial engagement was not conducted by a competent authority, despite the State extracting work from them for years.

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, which mandates the regularization of employees who have completed seven years of continuous service.

Constitutional principles of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Livelihood), alongside the doctrine of "Equal pay for equal work".

The exception carved out in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, which allows for the consideration of employees who have worked for long periods where the State has benefited from their services.

The precedents set in State of J&K v. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohil and State of J&K v. Rakesh Kumar, which granted regularization to similarly situated land donors.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the applicants were engaged through an improper procedure, ruling that the State cannot benefit from its own wrong by extracting labor for over a decade and then declaring the engagement unauthorized.

The court found that continuous service coupled with the donation of land created a legitimate expectation of employment.

It distinguished the present case from the restrictive mandates of Uma Devi, noting that the applicants fell under the specific statutory protection of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, having served well beyond the seven-year threshold.

The Tribunal observed that denying regularization to these applicants while granting it to others in identical circumstances would constitute a "clear case of exploitation" and a violation of Article 14.

Furthermore, the non-payment of wages for work actually performed was deemed an arbitrary violation of the right to livelihood under Article 21.

The respondents were directed to: (a) regularize the applicants' services under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, effective from the date they completed seven years of service; (b) provide notional benefits from the date of entitlement and monetary benefits prospectively; (c) release all withheld wages within three months based on available records; and (d) ensure the applicants are not disengaged or replaced by other temporary staff. The entire exercise must be completed within three months of receipt of the order.