State cannot utilize prolonged ad-hocism to deny regularization of employees serving against sanctioned posts.

The petitioner was appointed as a full-time consolidated worker in the Shopian Forest Division on 29.09.2005.

Following a 2013 circular seeking his disengagement, the petitioner filed multiple rounds of litigation (SWP No. 1290/2013 and SWP No. 2129/2016) seeking regularization.

While the High Court previously directed the respondents to consider his claim, the Chief Conservator of Forests issued an impugned order dated 17.05.2018 rejecting the claim on the grounds that the petitioner did not fall under the purview of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing he had completed over 13 years of service against a sanctioned post and that the order was passed by an incompetent authority.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim for regularization under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 given his length of service

2. Whether the impugned consideration order was invalid for being passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests instead of the Principal Chief Conservator as directed by the High Court

J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 and SRO 64 of 1994 regarding the regularization of ad-hoc/consolidated workers

Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), which held that prolonged, unblemished service in regular tasks transforms temporary engagement into a scenario demanding fair regularization

Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026), which established that the State cannot rely on contractual nomenclature to deny regularization to employees serving on sanctioned posts for over a decade

The Tribunal noted the petitioner's continuous service since 2005.

While the respondents argued the petitioner was ineligible under the 2010 Act because he had not met the specific seven-year criteria at the time the Act was invoked, the Tribunal looked beyond the mechanical application of the statute.

Relying on the "model employer" doctrine emphasized in Bhola Nath, the Tribunal observed that procedural formalities should not defeat the rights of an employee who has performed regular duties for a considerable period.

The Tribunal underscored that the petitioner has spent his "youth, blood, and sweat" in the department, necessitating a humanitarian and fair legal assessment rather than a purely technical rejection.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for regularization in light of the legal principles settled by the Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand. The respondents were further instructed to take a "humanitarian view" given the petitioner's nearly 20 years of service.