Shamasdin vs Forest Department on 31 December 2025

1. Shamasdin, Aged 59 years,

S/o Sh. Abdullah Ahanger,

R/o NagniHidyal Kishtwar, Pin – 182204.

2. Mohd. Iqbal, Aged 54 years,

S/o Sh. Akbar Lone,

R/o Hular Kishtwar, Pin – 182204.

3. Jagdish Raj Megh, Aged 60 years,

S/o Sh. Mohan Lla Megh,

R/o Vill. Dool, Kishtwar, Pin – 182204.

….Applicants

-Versus-

1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, through its Principal Secretary to Govt., Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment, Civil Secretariat, Jammu – 180001.

2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,

J&K, Jammu – 180001.

3. Conservator of Forest,

Chenab Circle, Jammu – 180001.

4. Divisional Officer,

Kishtwar Forest Division, Kishtwar – 182204.

....Respondents

Advocate for applicant(s): Mr. Sudershan Sharma

Advocate for respondent(s): Mr. S. Magotra, ld. AAG

ORDER(Oral)

PER MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

At the outset, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that since the issue involved in this case is identical one, applicants’ prayer to join together in a single application may be allowed; and is, therefore, allowed. Accordingly, M.A. No. 1996/2025 filed for joint application is allowed.

2. The applicants have moved this OA, seeking the following reliefs: “(i)

Prayer

seek indulgence of this Hon’ble Tribunal by commanding upon the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants on the date the applicants complete sevenyear of their service alongwith all the consequential benefits including monetary benefits and place the applicants at the appropriate place in the seniority list of the employees, in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

(ii) The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly award such other relief(s) as may be considered appropriate in the circumstances of the present case.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants came to be engaged as CDL/daily rated worker in the department in the year 1990, 1991 vide Order No. 3421-23 dated 13.12.1990, dated03.1991, 09.1992. The statement showing the seniority of daily wager having name of applicants was also issued. The applicants are serving in the department continuously; the attendance sheet issued to the applicants from time to time clearly shows it. The posting orders also shows it. The sheet showing the wages drawn for the preceding 7 years of due of eligibility for regularization was issued. That it is in place to mention herein that vide Speaking order no. 45/KFD dated 28.09.2017, No. 60/KFD dated 28.09.2017, the applicants were certified to be daily rated worker and were recommended for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994. It also showed the status of the applicants as having been continuously working since the date of engagement.

That vide letter dated 25.03.2019, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kishtwar Forest Division submitted to Conservator of Forest, Chenab Circle, Doda with subject proposal relating to the regularization of left out DRWs, it was submitted that it clearly reveals from records that contention of the department was toengage these persons as Regular Daily Wagers i.e., “DRWs” which is substantiated by this fact that nature of all Forestry worksparticularly watch & ward is whole time job and not seasonal and the service of these incumbents have mostly been utilized on watch& ward duty. Further it is necessary to mention here that in many of their subsequent MR's, the status nomenclature has been written as DRW. Thus, it can be safely concluded that they were engaged as DRW's and deems to have been worked as DRW's till date from the date of their engagement. That it is in place to mention herein that the applicants have completed the requirement of SRO 64 of 1994 long ago still the applicants have not been regularized. And the despite the fact they were engaged as DRWS and are working as such since their engagement, which is clear from the letter, speaking orders where the applicants were recommended for regularization. That the applicants have approached the respondents time and again but nothing substantial has come out and the service of the applicants have not been regularized in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, this OA.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has fairly submitted that it would suffice applicants’ purposes, if a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants in light of SRO 64 of 1994 within a stipulated timeframe.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to such proposition.

6. Heard the parties.

7. In view of the limited prayer made by counsel for the applicants, respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the applicants for regularisationin the light of documents so annexed with OA i.e., Annexures- A/2, A/3 & A/4 under SRO 64 of 1994,and,decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

8. Accordingly, OA stands disposed of at the threshold. No costs.

9. Pending M.As, if any, also stand disposed of.

(R.M. JOHRI)

(R.S. DOGRA)

MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J) /Sk/