Long-term service mandates regularization despite initial engagement irregularities or the absence of sanctioned posts.

The applicants were engaged as Watchman-cum-Chowkidars/Night Chowkidars in the Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department during the early 1990s and have rendered over two decades of continuous service

They sought regularization under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, asserting they met the criteria of seven years of continuous service

Although the Department conducted a verification exercise in 2010 to examine their claims for regularization, no final decision was taken

In 2014, the respondents issued Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2014 to fill Class-IV posts via fresh recruitment, which the applicants challenged

The respondents contended that the applicants were engaged under "local arrangements" by incompetent authorities, not against sanctioned posts, and were paid under the Minimum Wages Act until January 2023

The respondents further noted that the 2014 advertisement was withdrawn ab-initio in 2017

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regularization or absorption under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, despite the respondents' claim that they were not engaged against sanctioned posts

2. Whether the Department can deny service benefits and tenure security after long-term engagement by attributing the irregularity of the appointment to subordinate authorities

3. Whether the challenge to Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2014 survives following its withdrawal by the Department

The court primarily applied the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, which provides for the regularization of adhoc, contractual, or consolidated employees who have completed seven years of service

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, regarding fair recruitment and the prohibition of arbitrary state action

The court referenced the principle from LPASW No. 422/1999, which suggested that while public appointments should be advertised, the claims of long-serving temporary employees should be considered during regularization exercises

The Tribunal observed that the Department's act of summoning the applicants for a verification exercise proved that the administration treated their regularization as a "live administrative matter"

It rejected the respondents' argument regarding the absence of sanctioned posts, noting that "watch and ward" duties are perennial administrative needs, not casual or seasonal activities

The Tribunal reasoned that if the initial engagement was irregular, the fault lay with the administration, and the worker should not be punished for the Department’s chosen mode of securing labor

Regarding the 2010 Act, the Tribunal held that conditions such as "engagement against a clear vacancy" must not be applied mechanically to defeat the Act's purpose when the State has exploited labor for decades

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the respondents' plea that the applicants were "not working presently" insufficient, as no lawful order or due process for their discontinuation was produced

It held that the challenge to Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2014 was infructuous due to its prior withdrawal

the Tribunal directed the respondents to regularize or absorb the applicants against available sanctioned Class-IV or equivalent posts within 12 weeks

If no posts are available, the respondents must appoint them to the next available vacancy or create supernumerary posts

The applicants were granted notional seniority from the date they became eligible under the policy, with monetary benefits restricted to the period permissible under law, subject to the adjustment of wages already paid