Medically certified illness-related service breaks cannot defeat a daily wager’s eligibility for regularization.

Late Subash Chander Sharma was engaged as a cook on daily wages in the Forest Guard Training School, Doomi, in July 1990.

The applicants, his widow and daughter, asserted that he became eligible for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 after completing seven years’ service, and that his 206 days of absence due to illness should be condoned.

Departmental records repeatedly described him as a daily-rated worker, recorded seven years’ service as completed by 31 March 1998, and included recommendations to condone the breaks and regularize him.

He died on 12 March 2020 without being regularized; his widow later sought compassionate appointment for their daughter.

The respondents opposed the claims, contending that Sharma was a casual labourer and had not completed seven years of continuous service.

The applicants sought regularization from 1 April 1998, consequential and family-pension benefits, and compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994.

1. Whether Sharma was a daily-rated worker who fulfilled the seven-year service requirement for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994, notwithstanding the medically supported breaks in service.

2. Whether the applicants were entitled to consequential and family-pension benefits following Sharma’s death.

3. Whether the daughter was entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994, although Sharma had not been formally regularized before his death.

SRO 64 of 1994 provides for regularization of eligible daily-rated workers who satisfy the prescribed service requirements, including seven years’ continuous service.

SRO 43 of 1994 provides for compassionate appointment to eligible dependants of government employees who die in harness.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate, holding that the department could not contradict its own consistent official records describing Sharma as a daily-rated worker.

It also relied on State of J&K v. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail, Union Territory of J&K v. Mohd. Akbar Batt and Shri Bahadur Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh in addressing the classification of long-serving workers and the treatment of service shortfalls beyond a worker’s control.

For compassionate appointment, it relied on Sureksha Rani v. State of J&K, Bikramjeet Singh v. State of J&K and Mohammad Rafiq Tandyal v. UT of J&K, applying the principle that a daily-rated worker’s dependant may be considered under SRO 43 where the worker had acquired an entitlement to consideration for regularization before death.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents’ classification of Sharma as a casual labourer because departmental records spanning several years consistently identified him as a daily-rated worker and documented his service and regularization case.

It further relied on departmental communications confirming that he had completed seven years’ service by 31 March 1998. Since his 206 days of absence were attributed to illness, supported by medical certificates and repeatedly recommended for condonation by the department, the Tribunal held that those breaks should not defeat his regularization claim.

Having found that Sharma had acquired the entitlement to regularization before his death, the Tribunal held that his lack of formal regularization did not, by itself, bar his daughter from being considered under SRO 43.

It directed the respondents to regularize Sharma as a Helper with effect from 1 April 1998, with consequential benefits, and to grant family pension to his widow with arrears.

It also directed them to consider and appoint the daughter against an available post under SRO 43 of 1994, taking account of her 10+2 qualification.

The directions were to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order; no order as to costs was made.