Regularization denied without official proof of lawful engagement by competent authority.

The applicant, Shri Babu Ram, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal after his SWP No. 4384/2019 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu.

He claimed to have been engaged as a Motorman on a casual basis in January 2009 in the Public Health Engineering Department, Mechanical Sub-Division Udhampur, pursuant to Government Order No. 239-F of 2005.

He asserted continuous work, including duties as a Valve Man, and alleged that despite his work, he was not regularly paid the prescribed wages of Rs. 70 per day, only receiving approximately Rs. 2000 per year.

The applicant further relied on departmental lists allegedly showing his name among unpaid casual workers and part-time workers, arguing that these indicated official acknowledgment of his engagement.

He also averred that the department's communication dated 01.02.2019, denying his engagement as Motorman while referencing Govt. Order No. 239-F of 2005, was incorrect, and he continued to work.

Consequently, he sought regularization of his services under the J&K Casual and other Workers-Regular Engagement Rules, 2017 (SRO 520 of 2017), payment of alleged arrears, and permission to continue duties.

The respondents contested the claims, denying that the applicant was ever engaged as a Motorman or casual labour, stating his claim of continuous engagement was incorrect and contrary to official records.

They relied on a report dated 06.01.2020 from the Assistant Executive Engineer, PHE Sub-Division Udhampur, which stated that the applicant was not working with the department.

The respondents argued that SRO 520 of 2017 was inapplicable as he was never an engaged casual worker.

Whether the applicant was validly engaged as a casual worker in the Public Health Engineering Department?

Whether the applicant is entitled to the regularization of his services under the Jammu and Kashmir Casual and Other Workers (Regular Engagement) Rules, 2017 (SRO 520 of 2017)?

Whether the applicant is entitled to payment of wages at the rate of Rs. 70 per day in terms of Government Order No. 239-F of 2005?

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless lawful engagement in accordance with rules is established.

It also held that the benefits of SRO 520 of 2017 are available only to casual or seasonal workers who were validly engaged and whose service is borne out from official records.

Furthermore, it stated that courts and tribunals cannot direct regularization based on unsubstantiated claims of engagement, as this would amount to creating a public post through judicial order, which is impermissible.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim of engagement as a casual worker in 2009 lacked official support.

Despite the applicant's assertions and reliance on certain lists and certificates, there was no official engagement order or other document from a competent authority proving his appointment or engagement.

Conversely, the respondents explicitly denied his engagement and submitted a report dated 06.01.2020, confirming that the applicant was not working with the department.

The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to produce official records to counter this categorical stance.

The reliance on "unofficial lists" was deemed insufficient to establish legal engagement or continuous work, as such inclusion could not confer a legal right to appointment or regularization.

Since the foundational fact of valid engagement was not established, the claim for payment of wages under Government Order No. 239-F of 2005 also failed, as the question of wages only arises if engagement is proven.

Similarly, the benefits of SRO 520 of 2017 were deemed inapplicable because the applicant failed to prove his engagement by the respondents.

The Tribunal emphasized that judicial orders cannot create public posts in the absence of proven engagement.

Consequently, the entire claim for regularization and wages collapsed.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Transfer Application.

Accordingly, T.A. No. 3751/2020 was dismissed.

No order as to costs was made.