Nature and continuity of service, not mere nomenclature, determine eligibility for regularization under statutory schemes.

The petitioner was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker in April 1995 in the Bajalta Beat, Jammu Forest Division

He asserted continuous service for nearly three decades, including duties at the Timber Sales Depot, Sarore, and the Forest Guest House, Sidhra

Having completed seven years of service in April 2002, the petitioner claimed entitlement to regularization under SRO-64 of 1994 and Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001

Following a 2014 High Court direction to consider his claim (SWP No. 840/2009), the respondents issued Forest Order No. 26 of 2015, rejecting the claim on the grounds that the petitioner was a "casual labour" and not a "regular daily rated worker" covered by the rules

The petitioner challenged this rejection as arbitrary and discriminatory

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization under SRO-64 of 1994 and Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 despite being classified by the department as a "casual labour."

2. Whether the distinction between "casual labour" and "daily rated worker" is determined by nomenclature or the nature and continuity of service.

3. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim via the impugned Forest Order No. 26 of 2015 was legally sustainable.

J&K Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regulation) Rules, 1994 (SRO-64 of 1994)

Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001, which mandates the consideration for regularization of workers engaged up to 2001 after seven years of continuous service

Division Bench judgment in Balbir Singh & Others v. State of J&K, upheld by the Supreme Court, which held that workers engaged after 31.03.1994 are eligible for regularization under the 2001 Order

Principle from Jai Dev Gupta v. State of Himachal Pradesh to restrict arrears of monetary benefits to three years prior to the filing of the petition

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), noting that the claim was based on a specific statutory and executive policy framework

The Tribunal found that the petitioner had rendered uninterrupted service since 1995, as the respondents failed to produce any disengagement order

It reasoned that the nomenclature "casual labour" cannot defeat a substantive claim for regularization when the factual continuity of service mirrors that of a daily rated worker

The Tribunal observed that the petitioner satisfied the criteria of Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001, having completed seven years by April 2002

It criticized the respondents for mechanically rejecting the claim and failing to apply the ratio of Balbir Singh, which extended benefits to those engaged after the 1994 cutoff

The Tribunal held that denying regularization to the petitioner while granting it to similarly situated persons constituted "hostile discrimination" in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

It held that the petitioner is entitled to regularization as a Daily Rated Worker effective from 01.04.2002 (the date he completed seven years of service)

The respondents were directed to regularize his services with all consequential benefits on a notional basis; however, actual monetary benefits were restricted to a period of three years preceding the filing of the original writ petition

The compliance exercise must be completed within three months