State Cannot Invoke Contractual Labels to Deny Regularization Following Three Decades of Continuous Perennial Service.

The respondents were engaged as daily rated workers in the Eco Task Force Division of the Forest Department, Jammu, and have continuously served for approximately 25 to 30 years

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, vide order dated June 2, 2025, directed the petitioners to regularize the respondents' services under SRO 64 of 1994 and/or the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010

The UT of J&K challenged this order, contending that the respondents were hired on "need basis" without sanctioned posts and that all regularization policies (SRO 64 of 1994 and SRO 520 of 2017) were repealed by S.O 514 dated October 6, 2023, leaving no policy in vogue for consideration

1. Whether the continuous service of employees for three decades can be labeled as "temporary" or "of limited duration" to deny regularization

2. Whether the repeal of regularization policies (SRO 64 and SRO 520) retrospectively extinguishes the rights of employees whose claims had already crystallized

The Court relied on the distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments established in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, asserting that Umadevi cannot shield exploitative engagements persisting for years

It applied the principle from Jaggo v. Union of India (2025) which deprecated the practice of labeling perennial work as contractual to deny job security

Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand were cited to emphasize that the State, as a "Model Employer," must respect the dignity of labor and cannot rely on mechanical applications of nomenclature to discard long-serving employees

the Court applied the doctrine that rights accrued under a statute cannot be taken away retrospectively by a repeal

The Court reasoned that 25 to 30 years of uninterrupted service, evidenced by muster rolls and duty registers, effectively proves the permanence of the work performed

It rejected the petitioners' "need basis" argument, holding that the State cannot use technical labels like "seasonal labor" to avoid justice after benefiting from decades of labor

The Court observed that the pervasive misuse of temporary contracts mirrors detrimental "gig economy" trends and undermines public trust

Regarding the repeal of SRO 64 and SRO 520 via S.O 514, the Court analyzed that since the respondents' rights had already crystallized over three decades, the repeal could not be applied retrospectively to defeat these rights, as doing so would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT's direction to regularize the respondents' services, and affirmed that the State cannot resort to a "hire and fire" policy after 30 years of continuous service