Joginder Pal vs D/o Public Health Engineering Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 31 December 2025

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.3196/2019 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.1308/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: - a) “Direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner against an available class IV vacancy in the Public Health Engineer Department the date he has completed seven years service as daily wager on the same analogy as has been adopted by the officials respondents in the cases of similarly situated persons like the petitioner b) Direct the respondents to treat the period of service of the petitioner as daily wager from the year 2008 instead of the year 2015,.. c) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay monthly remuneration to the petitioner as fixed under the SRO 520 for skilled workers regularly and also directions be issued to respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner since 2008. d) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant to the petitioner all consequential retrospective benefits viz. salary in the regular pay scale of Class IV, seniority, promotion etc. to which the petitioner is otherwise legally entitled to; by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 3 :: TA 1308/2020

e) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: - a) The petitioner, an Indian citizen and permanent resident of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal seeking regularization of his services as a Class-IV employee in the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department. The grievance raised pertains to denial of regularization and allied benefits despite long years of service allegedly rendered by him as a daily wager. b) It is averred that the petitioner is a trained and skilled worker, having undergone training in Transformer and Motor Winding from Government Polytechnic, Jammu. According to the petitioner, he was initially engaged in the year 2008 as a casual labourer/daily wager in the PHE Department, Mechanical Division Udhampur, and was posted at the Water Supply Station, Dadwa, Pouni, District Reasi, where he has continuously discharged duties as a Motor Operator.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: TA 1308/2020

c) The petitioner asserts that since his initial engagement in 2008, he has been rendering uninterrupted service with sincerity and dedication, and his work and conduct have remained satisfactory throughout, without any complaint from the department. d) It is contended that upon completion of seven years of service in the year 2015, the petitioner became eligible for regularization under the applicable government policy, including SRO-520. However, despite being eligible, his case was not considered for regularization against available Class-IV vacancies, whereas similarly situated employees have allegedly been extended the benefit of regularization. e) The petitioner alleges that although he has been working since 2008, the respondents have arbitrarily treated the year 2015 as the base year for computing his length of service, thereby depriving him of his rightful claim for regularization and consequential benefits. In support of this assertion, reliance is placed on internal departmental communications and reports indicating his engagement prior to 2015.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: TA 1308/2020

f) It is further pleaded that repeated representations submitted by the petitioner to the departmental authorities seeking regularization and proper fixation of wages have yielded no result, compelling him to approach the judicial forum for redressal of his grievances. g) The petitioner also claims entitlement to payment of wages in terms of SRO-520 applicable to skilled workers, including arrears from the year 2008, and seeks consequential benefits such as seniority, regular pay scale, and promotion, asserting violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution due to discriminatory treatment.

4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: - a) At the outset, the respondents submit that the present Transfer Application is misconceived, frivolous, and devoid of any legal merit. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate infringement of any statutory, constitutional, or fundamental right, and therefore the application is liable to be dismissed in limine. b) It is submitted that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the petitioner against the answering respondents. The petitioner by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: TA 1308/2020

lacks locus standi to seek the reliefs prayed for, as his claims are based on incorrect assumptions and misrepresentation of facts. c) The respondents further submit that the petitioner has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands and has deliberately attempted to mislead the Court by suppressing material facts and projecting a false narrative regarding his engagement and length of service. d) Without prejudice to the preliminary objections, it is categorically denied that the petitioner was engaged in the year 2008. As per official records, including the first available muster roll, the petitioner was engaged as a need-based casual labourer only in February 2015. His first payment of wages pertains to this period and was released vide Cash Voucher No. 09 dated 19.08.2016. e) The respondents submit that no muster roll, wage register, or authenticated departmental record exists evidencing the petitioner’s engagement prior to February 2015. Attendance of all casual labourers is recorded exclusively through muster roll sheets duly maintained and authenticated by the Sub-Divisional by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: TA 1308/2020

authorities, and no other document has evidentiary value for establishing engagement or continuity of service. f) It is further pointed out that the petitioner has annexed a certificate showing that he underwent a skill-based course in Transformer and Motor Winding from July 2009 to December 2009 at Government Polytechnic, Jammu. This fact itself contradicts his assertion of continuous engagement since 2008, as no permission was ever sought or granted for such training during alleged service, thereby falsifying his claim. g) In view of the above, the claim of wages or service benefits for the period from 2008 to 2015 is wholly untenable and unsupported by any official record. The petitioner’s engagement clearly commenced only in February 2015. h) With regard to implementation of SRO-520, the respondents submit that the same is a policy matter falling within the exclusive domain of the Government. No casual labourer or need-based worker has been regularized under SRO-520 in the respondent office. The petitioner’s assertion that similarly situated persons have been regularized is incorrect and misleading.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: TA 1308/2020

i) It is further clarified that SRO-520 does not provide for automatic regularization upon completion of seven years of service, as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner has been paid wages strictly in accordance with the rates notified by the Government from time to time, and he continues to receive wages at par with other similarly placed casual labourers. At present, he is being paid wages at the rate of ₹311 per day, and an amount of ₹9,019/- was paid to him for the month of February 2024. j) The respondents also submit that certain respondent designations mentioned in the application do not exist as such, which further reflects the casual and inaccurate manner in which the present application has been drafted. k) In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the respondents submit that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed, and the Transfer Application deserves to be dismissed with costs.

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

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: TA 1308/2020

6. The present Transfer Application, originally filed as SWP No. 3196/2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and transferred to this Tribunal, raises a grievance concerning non- regularization of the applicant, a daily wager/casual labourer working in the Public Health Engineering Department, and incorrect reckoning of his length of engagement.

7. The applicant asserts engagement from the year 2008, whereas the respondents contend that his engagement is traceable only from February, 2015, on the basis of available muster roll records. The controversy essentially centres on the determination of the correct period of engagement and the consequences flowing therefrom under the applicable Government policy.

8. The applicant seeks directions for:  regularization of his services against an available Class-IV vacancy;  reckoning of his service from the year 2008 instead of 2015;  payment of wages/remuneration as per applicable Government orders; and  grant of consequential service benefits.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: TA 1308/2020

9. The applicant pleads that he was engaged as a casual labourer in the PHE Department in the year 2008 and has continuously worked at Water Supply Station Dadwa (Pouni), District Reasi, discharging duties of Motor Operator. He claims to be a trained skilled worker, having undergone technical training from Government Polytechnic, Jammu.

10. It is asserted that he completed seven years of service in the year 2015 and thereby became eligible for consideration for regularization under the prevailing Government policy/orders. Despite repeated representations, his case was allegedly not finalized, while other similarly situated persons were extended benefits.

11. The applicant contends that the respondents have arbitrarily taken 2015 as the base year, thereby depriving him of legitimate consideration and associated benefits, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

12. The respondents have opposed the application, contending that the applicant was engaged only in February 2015, as per the first available muster roll, and that no authenticated record exists evidencing his engagement prior thereto.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: TA 1308/2020

13. It is asserted that muster roll sheets are the only valid mode of recording attendance of casual labourers and that the applicant’s claim of engagement from 2008 is unsupported by official records. Reliance is also placed upon the applicant’s training certificate (July–December 2009) to contend that his plea of continuous engagement from 2008 is untenable.

14. The respondents further submit that regularization is a matter of Government policy; that SRO-520 does not confer automatic right to regularization upon completion of seven years; and that the applicant has been paid wages strictly as per Government-notified rates applicable from time to time.

15. The following questions arise for determination:  Whether the applicant has made out a case for fair verification of his claim of engagement from 2008?  Whether denial of consideration by mechanically adopting 2015 as the base year is arbitrary?  What relief, if any, can be granted consistent with policy and settled law? A. On determination of engagement period by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: TA 1308/2020

16. It is not in dispute that the applicant is presently working with the respondents as a casual labourer and that the department has been continuously extracting work from him. The respondents’ objection is confined to the non-availability of muster roll records prior to February 2015 in their office.

17. This Tribunal is conscious of the fact that in departments such as PHE, particularly at field stations and pumping stations, records relating to casual labourers are often maintained at multiple levels. Non-availability of earlier muster rolls in one office cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof against the workman, especially when he asserts long engagement and seeks verification from departmental records.

18. The law is settled that administrative lapses in record-keeping cannot be used to the prejudice of an employee, particularly a daily wager who has little control over maintenance of official records.

19. The respondents’ reliance on the applicant’s training certificate does not conclusively negate his claim. The issue is not continuous physical presence on every working day, but whether the applicant was engaged and worked under the department over the period claimed, a matter which requires objective verification.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: TA 1308/2020

B. On regularization and scope of judicial directions

20. It is equally well settled that regularization cannot be directed as a matter of right merely on the basis of long service, and courts/tribunals cannot issue directions contrary to statutory rules or policy.

21. At the same time, an employee is entitled to fair, non-arbitrary consideration of his claim in accordance with policy. Denial of such consideration by adopting an artificial or mechanically chosen base year, without undertaking a proper verification, cannot be sustained.

22. The correct approach, therefore, lies in directing a time-bound, reasoned verification, followed by a speaking decision on consideration for regularization strictly in accordance with applicable policy and availability of vacancy.

23. The approach adopted herein is supported by settled principles of service jurisprudence, inter alia:  Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) – regularization is not automatic, but fairness and non-arbitrariness in State action is mandatory.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: TA 1308/2020

 State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari – long engagement requires fair consideration under policy; technical objections should not defeat substantive justice.  State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh – daily wagers are entitled to fair treatment and cannot be subjected to arbitrary action.  Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka – State cannot exploit labour while denying legitimate consideration.

24. In the totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for allowance of the Transfer Application, to the extent of issuance of structured, policy-compliant, and enforceable directions, without trenching upon the exclusive domain of the executive.

25. Accordingly, the Transfer Application is ALLOWED in the following terms: a) The respondents shall constitute a Verification Committee, headed by an officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer, to verify the applicant’s claim of engagement/working from the year 2008, by examining all relevant records including muster rolls at site/sub-division level, pumping station log books, by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 15 :: TA 1308/2020

scheme registers, wage vouchers, and any other contemporaneous departmental records. b) The applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to submit documents and representations in support of his claim. c) The verification exercise shall be completed within (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. d) Thereafter, within four (04) weeks, the competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order determining the period of engagement to be reckoned for the applicant and shall consider his case for regularization strictly in accordance with the applicable Government policy/orders and subject to availability of a Class-IV vacancy. e) If the applicant is found entitled to consideration from an earlier date and is regularized as per policy, he shall be granted notional seniority and service benefits as admissible under rules. Monetary benefits shall be regulated as per law and policy. f) The respondents shall ensure that the applicant is paid wages strictly in accordance with Government-notified rates by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 16 :: TA 1308/2020

applicable from time to time. Any shortfall detected upon verification shall be released thereafter. g) Till completion of the above exercise, the applicant shall not be disengaged arbitrarily, except in accordance with law and by a speaking order.

26. No order as to costs.

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

Judicial Member

/harshit/

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV