Vested right to regularization survives technical nomenclature, minor breaks, and subsequent repeal of statutory schemes.

The applicants (including the deceased husband of applicant No. 7) were engaged as daily wagers in the Forest Department of Jammu & Kashmir between 1992 and 1993

Upon completing seven years of continuous service by 1999–2000, they sought regularization under SRO 64 of 1994

Despite their long service, the respondents regularized their juniors in 2004 but denied the applicants similar benefits

Following a direction from the Hon’ble High Court in 2013 to consider their claims, an Empowered Committee rejected the regularization in 2016, alleging the applicants were "Casual Labourers" and not "Daily Rated Workers" (DRWs)

On 10.04.2024, the respondents issued Government Order No. 86 JK (FST) of 2024, again rejecting the claims on the grounds of status as casual labour, breaks in service, and the repeal of SRO 64

The applicants filed the present O.A. to quash the rejection order

1. Whether the applicants can be denied regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 by being classified as "Casual Labourers" despite rendering continuous service for over 30 years

2. Whether nominal and technical breaks in service spanning decades can disqualify employees from the requirement of "continuous service" for regularization

3. Whether the repeal of SRO 64 of 1994 extinguishes the vested right of regularization that accrued to the applicants prior to the repeal

Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules, 1994 (SRO 64 of 1994), which mandates regularization after seven years of continuous service

Precedent in State of J&K v. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail (2013), which established that employees engaged for long periods are deemed DRWs rather than casual labourers, regardless of the nomenclature used by the department

UT of J&K v. Sham Lal (2024) to affirm that the repeal of SRO 64 does not affect vested rights accrued before such repeal

Principles from Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) and Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), noting that irregular appointments held for over ten years must be considered for regularization as a one-time measure

The Tribunal found the respondents' classification of the applicants as "Casual Labourers" to be "factually perverse" because departmental records and internal communications had repeatedly referred to them as Daily Rated Workers

Applying the logic from Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail, the Tribunal noted that "Casual Labour" is intended for occasional work; however, 30 years of continuous service creates a legal presumption of regular need and DRW status

Regarding service breaks, the Tribunal observed that technical breaks (ranging from 31 to 485 days) scattered over three decades were nominal and could not be used to defeat accrued rights, especially since Applicant No. 8 was rejected despite having no breaks

On the issue of the repeal of SRO 64, the Tribunal held that the right to regularization vested in the applicants in 1999–2000, and the State cannot rely on its own delay or subsequent executive instructions to extinguish such rights retrospectively

The Tribunal emphasized that the State, as a model employer, violated Articles 14 and 16 by regularizing juniors while excluding the applicants

It held that the applicants are entitled to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 from the dates they completed seven years of service

The respondents were directed to: (1) regularize Applicants 1–6 and 8 with retrospective effect, providing all consequential benefits, arrears, and coverage under the Old Pension Scheme

(2) posthumously regularize the husband of Applicant No. 7 effective from 01.04.2000, releasing all death-cum-retirement benefits to her

(3) consider an eligible family member of the deceased for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994

The exercise must be completed within three months