Temporary, need-based engagement does not confer right to continuation or regular employment.

The petitioners, along with others, comprising 73 ITI-trained individuals, were engaged as daily wagers in 2014 by the PHE Mechanical Division, Udhampur, to operate pumping stations in District Udhampur and Reasi, as trained Pump Operators and Motormen were unavailable.

While 39 of these individuals received regular wages, the petitioners (34 of them) remained unpaid due to a lack of funds.

They eventually sought judicial intervention by filing SWP No. 647/2018 for the release of wages.

The respondents admitted the wages were due, and arrears were released up to November 2018, though the petitioners claimed the amount was less than due.

Following the release of arrears in May 2019, the department issued a communication on June 24, 2019, discussing a shortage of operational staff and exploring outsourcing arrangements, leading the petitioners to apprehend replacement by new daily wagers.

The respondents countered that the petitioners' engagement was temporary and need-based, and they ceased working after November 2018.

They further stated that permanent staff and other workers were mobilized to operate the schemes and denied engaging any fresh daily wagers in place of the petitioners.

The petitioners' case, SWP No. 3895/2019, was transferred from the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu to the Central Administrative Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 1969/2020.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to engage the petitioners as daily wagers to operate pumping stations in District Udhampur/Reasi.

2. Whether the respondents should be restrained from engaging another set of daily wagers in place of the petitioners for operating the pumping stations in District Udhampur and Reasi.

The court relied on the established principle that engagement on a temporary and need-based basis, particularly without a regular selection process, does not create any legal or vested right to claim continuation or regular employment.

It further affirmed that a temporary or daily wage engagement does not confer an enforceable right to seek continuation or fresh engagement once the work ceases.

The Tribunal’s power of judicial review is limited to instances where a statutory, legal, or fundamental right has been violated, and it cannot ordinarily direct engagement as daily wagers when the prior engagement was purely temporary and need-based.

However, principles of equity may warrant consideration for future engagement if such opportunities arise and the individuals meet eligibility criteria.

The court found that the petitioners’ initial engagement in 2014 was temporary and need-based, intended as a stop-gap arrangement due to a lack of available trained manpower, and was not a result of a regular selection process.

Such an engagement, by established legal principles, did not create any vested right for the petitioners to claim continued or regular employment.

The petitioners were paid for their actual work until November 2018, and once they ceased working, they could not claim a right to re-engagement based on their prior temporary service.

The apprehension of the petitioners regarding replacement by new daily wagers was unsupported by the record, as the respondents categorically denied engaging fresh daily wagers and instead utilized permanent staff and workers from sister divisions.

The internal communication regarding manpower shortage was deemed insufficient to prove the engagement of new daily wagers or to confer enforceable rights upon the petitioners.

Therefore, the court concluded that no statutory, legal, or fundamental right of the petitioners had been violated to warrant judicial interference for a direction of engagement as daily wagers.

However, acknowledging the petitioners' prior work and relevant training, the court applied principles of equity, suggesting that if future manpower needs arise, the petitioners might be considered on a priority basis, subject to eligibility and availability.

The Tribunal held that the petitioners demonstrated no violation of their statutory, legal, or fundamental rights to justify a direction for engagement as daily wagers.

The court further held that while the petitioners have no legal right to engagement, if the department genuinely requires manpower for operating pumping stations in the future and decides to engage workers on a need basis in accordance with the law, the petitioners may be given due consideration on a priority basis, subject to their eligibility and availability of posts and their earlier experience.

No order as to costs was made.