Vijay Kumar vs D/o Forests Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir on 31 December 2025

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.1877/2018 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.1885/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: - a) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that writ petition may kindly be accepted by issuing an appropriate writ, direction or order including in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the Forest Order No. 313 of 2016 dated 14-12-2016 issued by respondent No.3 whereby the case of the petitioners for regularization on permanent basis has been rejected. b) A further writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners on permanent basis with effect from 2002 with all consequential benefits. c) Costs of the petition with such other additional or alternate relief, which this Hon'ble Court may in the facts and circumstances of the case deem fit and proper, be also awarded in favour of the petitioners.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: - a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1877/2018, which stood transferred from the Hon’ble High

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 3 :: TA 1885/2020

Court of Jammu & Kashmir and was registered as T.A. No. 1885/2020 before this Tribunal b) The applicants seek quashing of Forest Order No. 313 of 2016 dated 14.12.2016, whereby their claim for regularization was rejected, and further seek a direction for regularization of their services with effect from the year 2002 along with all consequential benefits. c) The applicants state that they are permanent residents of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and are citizens of India, entitled to protection of their fundamental, statutory, and legal rights. Applicant No. 1, Vijay Kumar, having acquired matriculation qualification in the year 1992, was engaged by the Forest Department in March 1995 on daily wage basis and assigned the duties of watch and ward of Jindrah Closure, which is stated to be a large forest closure spread over approximately 500 kanals. Applicant No. 2, Balwan Singh, also a matriculate, was similarly engaged in March 1995 on daily wage basis and entrusted with watch and ward duties of Darsu Closure, stated to be spread over more than 600 kanals.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: TA 1885/2020

According to the applicants, both of them continuously discharged their duties with dedication and to the full satisfaction of their superior officers. d) It is averred that although the applicants were continuously performing duties akin to daily rated workers, the departmental record misleadingly described them as casual labourers. Despite rendering uninterrupted service, their wages were not released in the year 1997, compelling them to approach the Hon’ble High Court by filing SWP No. 928/1997, wherein they sought regularization of services and release of wages. Vide order dated 06.07.1998, the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the same be treated as a representation and that the respondents consider their claim in light of the prevailing policies and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh. The respondents were directed to take a decision preferably within three months and to maintain status quo with respect to the service of the applicants in the meanwhile.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: TA 1885/2020

e) As the said directions were not complied with, the applicants were constrained to initiate contempt proceedings. Thereafter, Forest Order No. 280 of 2000 dated 06.11.2000 came to be issued, whereby the applicants were stated to have been disengaged and declared ineligible for regularization on the ground that they were engaged after the cut-off date of 01.04.1994 prescribed under SRO 64 of 1994. Aggrieved, the applicants challenged the said order by filing SWP No. 1116/2001, which was decided along with a batch of writ petitions led by SWP No. 634/2000 by judgment dated 31.12.2001. The learned Writ Court held that daily rated workers engaged after 31.01.1994 were not entitled to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994. f) The applicants thereafter filed LPA (SW) No. 87/2002. It is pleaded that several LPAs arising from the same judgment were decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide common judgment dated 26.07.2002 in Ashok Kumar v. State of J&K, wherein it was held that cases of those employees not covered under SRO 64 of 1994 were required to be considered under Government

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: TA 1885/2020

Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 06.11.2001. Ultimately, the applicants’ LPA was disposed of on 27.11.2014 in terms of the said judgment, with a direction to the respondents to consider their cases accordingly. g) The applicants further rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 03.05.2006 passed in State of J&K v. Balbir Singh & Ors., wherein it was held that Government Order dated 06.11.2001 had the effect of extending the cut-off date for regularization. They also rely upon the Division Bench judgment in State of J&K v. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail & Ors. and the subsequent dismissal of SLP thereagainst, pursuant to which similarly situated persons engaged after 01.04.1994 were regularized by the Forest Department vide Government Order No. 70-FST of 2016 dated 04.03.2016. h) Despite repeated litigation and clear judicial pronouncements, the respondents, while filing compliance in contempt proceedings, issued Forest Order No. 313 of 2016 dated 14.12.2016 rejecting the applicants’ claim on the grounds that they were casual labourers, engaged after the cut-off date, not

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: TA 1885/2020

appointed on ad hoc basis, and allegedly disengaged in 1997. The contempt petition was disposed of granting liberty to the applicants to challenge the said order, which has resulted in the present proceedings. i) The applicants contend that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, contrary to binding precedents, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They assert parity with similarly situated persons who have been regularized and submit that the rejection of their claim is unsustainable in law. Delay in approaching the Court is sought to be explained on account of compelling family circumstances, including serious illness of the minor son of Applicant No. 2.

4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: - a) The respondents have filed their reply opposing the Transfer Application at the threshold. It is contended that the applicants have not suffered violation of any constitutional, statutory, or legal right and that the application is misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed in limine. It is further pleaded

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: TA 1885/2020

that the applicants have approached the Tribunal without clean hands and have misrepresented material facts. b) On facts, the respondents submit that the applicants were engaged only as casual labourers in March 1995, i.e., after the issuance of SRO 64 of 1994, for execution of specific and time- bound works. Their engagement was not against any sanctioned post, nor was it on daily rated or ad hoc basis. They were paid wages strictly on muster roll basis for the period they actually worked and were disengaged upon completion of the assigned work in the year 1997. c) It is averred that the applicants never worked continuously for 240 days in any calendar year and therefore did not acquire any right under the Industrial Disputes Act or under the policy governing regularization. Their case was duly examined in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court from time to time, and Forest Order No. 280 of 2000 dated 06.11.2000 was issued rejecting their claim as they did not fall within the purview of SRO 64 of 1994.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: TA 1885/2020

d) The respondents further contend that the judgments relied upon by the applicants, including Ashok Kumar and Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail, are not applicable to their case as those judgments pertain to daily rated or ad hoc employees, whereas the applicants were only casual labourers engaged for specific works. It is specifically pleaded that Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 deals with ad hoc appointments and does not extend any benefit to casual labourers like the applicants. e) Pursuant to the judgment dated 27.11.2014 passed in LPA (SW) No. 87/2002, the respondents re-examined the case of the applicants and, upon due consideration of records, passed Forest Order No. 313 of 2016 dated 14.12.2016 rejecting their claim for regularization, as they were found ineligible under the governing rules and policies. The respondents assert that the said order has been passed strictly in accordance with law and constitutes valid compliance of the Court’s directions. f) It is thus submitted that the applicants have no enforceable right to seek regularization, that no discrimination has been

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: TA 1885/2020

committed, and that the Transfer Application is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. This Transfer Application, originally filed as SWP No. 1877/2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and transferred to this Tribunal as TA No. 1885/2020, calls in question Forest Order No. 313 of 2016 dated 14.12.2016 whereby the claim of the applicants for regularization of service was rejected. The applicants further seek a direction for regularization with retrospective effect and all consequential benefits

7. The applicants claim that they were engaged in March 1995 by the Forest Department and were assigned duties of watch and ward in forest closures. According to them, they continuously discharged their duties and were wrongly shown as casual labourers despite performing duties akin to daily rated workers. They rely heavily upon a long chain of litigation beginning from SWP No. 928/1997, subsequent contempt proceedings, and later judgments rendered in Ashok Kumar, Balbir Singh, and Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail cases to

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: TA 1885/2020

contend that the cut-off date under SRO 64 of 1994 stood extended by Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 06.11.2001 and that persons engaged after 01.04.1994 were also entitled to regularization.

8. The respondents, on the other hand, assert that the applicants were engaged purely as casual labourers, for specific and temporary works, on muster roll basis, after the issuance of SRO 64 of 1994, that they never worked for 240 days continuously, were disengaged upon completion of work in 1997, and that they never held the status of daily rated or ad hoc employees. It is thus contended that their case does not fall within the ambit of SRO 64 of 1994 or Government Order dated 06.11.2001.

9. The core questions that arise for determination are:  Whether the applicants were daily rated/ad hoc employees or merely casual labourers engaged for specific works?  Whether the applicants acquired any legal right to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 or Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001?  Whether the judgments relied upon by the applicants confer enforceable parity?

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: TA 1885/2020

 Whether Forest Order No. 313 of 2016 suffers from illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of constitutional guarantees?

10. At the outset, it is settled beyond dispute that regularization is not a mode of recruitment, but a one-time exception permitted strictly within the framework of statutory rules and executive policy. No employee can claim regularization as a matter of right merely on the basis of long service, unless the engagement itself satisfies the conditions prescribed by law.

11. The record unmistakably establishes that the applicants were engaged in March 1995, i.e., after the cut-off date prescribed under SRO 64 of 1994, and that too as casual labourers for specific works, such as fencing, watch and ward, and nursery maintenance. Their engagement was not against any sanctioned post, nor was it on daily rated or ad hoc basis. Wages were paid strictly on muster roll basis for the actual days worked.

12. The distinction between a daily rated worker and a casual labourer is well recognized in service jurisprudence. A daily rated worker is ordinarily engaged against ongoing departmental requirements, whereas a casual labourer is engaged for specific, temporary tasks and

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: TA 1885/2020

disengaged upon completion thereof. The documentary record, including muster rolls and departmental correspondence, clearly supports the respondents’ stand that the applicants fall in the latter category.

13. The applicants’ contention that they continued in service uninterruptedly is not borne out from the record. On the contrary, the respondents have consistently maintained—and the applicants have failed to dislodge—that the applicants did not work continuously for 240 days in any calendar year. In absence of such continuity, even the protective umbrella of labour law does not extend to them.

14. Much emphasis has been placed by the applicants on the judgments rendered in Ashok Kumar, Balbir Singh, and Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail. However, a careful reading of these judgments reveals that they pertain to daily rated or ad hoc employees, whose engagements were of a different legal character altogether. The extension of the cut- off date under Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 was interpreted by the courts in the context of such categories of employees.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: TA 1885/2020

15. The applicants herein were never appointed on ad hoc basis, a fact expressly noticed in the impugned Forest Order No. 313 of 2016. Once this foundational fact is accepted, the entire edifice of the applicants’ claim collapses. The benefit of Government Order dated 06.11.2001 cannot be mechanically extended to casual labourers, as doing so would amount to rewriting the policy and creating a new class of beneficiaries not contemplated by the rule-making authority.

16. Parity cannot be claimed in illegality. Even assuming that some individuals were erroneously regularized, Article 14 does not envisage negative equality. Courts have consistently held that a wrong decision in one case cannot be the basis for claiming similar relief in another.

17. Forest Order No. 313 of 2016 was passed pursuant to judicial directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court while disposing of LPA (SW) No. 87/2002. The respondents re-examined the case of the applicants, considered their service particulars, nature of engagement, and applicable rules, and thereafter recorded detailed reasons for rejecting the claim. The order cannot be termed cryptic, arbitrary, or mechanical.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 15 :: TA 1885/2020

18. The contention that the applicants were disengaged in violation of the status quo order is also without merit. The alleged disengagement pertains to the year 1997, whereas the status quo direction was issued subsequently. No document evidencing continued engagement beyond the completion of assigned work has been produced.

19. The impugned order is of the year 2016, whereas the writ petition was filed in 2018. Even otherwise, the applicants are seeking regularization with retrospective effect from 2002, despite having admittedly not worked for decades. Service jurisprudence does not countenance resurrection of stale claims, particularly when no subsisting relationship of employer and employee exists.

20. Viewed from any angle, the applicants have failed to establish:  any legal right to regularization,  any violation of statutory rules or binding precedents,  any arbitrariness or discrimination attributable to the respondents.

21. The Tribunal finds that the impugned Forest Order No. 313 of 2016 dated 14.12.2016 is legal, reasoned, and in consonance with settled law.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 16 :: TA 1885/2020

22. For the reasons recorded above, the Transfer Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

23. The impugned Forest Order No. 313 of 2016 dated 14.12.2016 is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

/harshit/

HARSHIT YADAV