Respondents directed to decide regularization claims of daily wagers in light of prior binding judicial precedents.

The fourteen applicants were engaged as Daily Wagers in the Irrigation & Flood Control Department prior to 1994 and have remained in continuous service for over 25–30 years

They sought regularization under SRO 64 of 1994, which mandates the regularization of Daily Wagers engaged before 1994 upon completion of seven years of continuous service—a condition the applicants met by 2001

Despite receiving favorable orders regarding wages in 2006 and a subsequent direction from the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 2415/2018 (dated 12.10.2018) to consider their case in light of the judgment in SWP No. 969/2012, the respondents failed to take a final decision for over seven years

The applicants filed the present Original Application (OA) alleging arbitrary exclusion and willful disobedience of judicial directions

1. Whether the respondents’ prolonged inaction in deciding the applicants' regularization case, despite prior High Court directions and the existence of SRO 64 of 1994, constitutes an arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of power

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to a time-bound consideration of their case for regularization in light of settled judicial precedents

SRO 64 of 1994, which serves as the statutory framework for the regularization of daily rated workers in Jammu and Kashmir

Rule 25 of the Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, regarding the filing of joint applications

Principles of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing non-discrimination and the right to livelihood

Binding nature of prior judicial directions, specifically the judgments in SWP No. 969/2012 (dated 03.02.2016) and SWP No. 2415/2018 (dated 12.10.2018), which established the criteria for similarly situated employees

The Tribunal noted that the applicants had been working for nearly three decades without being regularized, despite the existence of a specific policy (SRO 64) and previous court orders

The applicants contended that the cause of action was continuous, as they remained in service as Daily Wagers while being denied regular status granted to others similarly situated

During the proceedings, the applicants narrowed their prayer, requesting that the OA be treated as a formal representation for a time-bound decision

The respondents, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, did not oppose this limited prayer, and both parties reached an agreement (ad idem) that the matter could be disposed of with specific directions

Consequently, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to adjudicate on the merits of the regularization claim at this stage, focusing instead on ensuring the respondents fulfilled their administrative duty to consider the case as per existing law and judicial precedents

The respondents are ordered to consider and decide the applicants' case for regularization in light of the judgments in SWP No. 969/2012 and SWP No. 2415/2018, provided the applicants are found to be similarly situated to those previously regularized and there is no legal impediment

The decision must be made in accordance with the law and applicable rules within a stipulated period

All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of with no order as to costs