Recently, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that long and uninterrupted engagement of daily wagers cannot be defeated by mere technical labels, especially when the State itself admits continuous service spanning decades. The Court cautioned that constitutional precedents cannot be misused to justify perpetual temporary employment.
The case arose from a challenge filed by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu, which had directed the authorities to regularise the services of a worker engaged as a Daily Wager since 1993. The Tribunal had further granted all consequential benefits, including arrears, in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.
Assailing the Tribunal’s order, the UT government contended that mere long service does not create a vested right to regularisation. It was argued that the worker was only a “casual labourer” and did not satisfy the statutory requirements under SRO 64, including eligibility conditions, availability of vacancies, and formal approval by the competent authority. The State also submitted that the Tribunal had failed to consider a speaking order passed in 2022 rejecting the claim for regularisation.
Upon examining the record, the High Court noted a fundamental contradiction in the stand taken by the authorities. While the rejection order described the worker as a casual labourer, the pleadings before the Court and official certificates issued by the department clearly admitted that he had been engaged as a Daily Rated Worker continuously since July 1993. The Bench observed that the authorities had repeatedly shifted their stand only to deny the legitimate claim of the worker.
The Court further observed that the reliance placed on the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi was misplaced. It clarified that Uma Devi cannot be misused as a shield to perpetuate ad-hocism or to justify decades-long temporary or daily-wage employment for work that is permanent in nature. The Bench emphasised that the said judgment was never intended to legitimise exploitation or deny regularisation where the State itself has continuously relied upon the services of such workers.
The Bench also took note of documentary evidence demonstrating that similarly situated workers were recommended and regularised, while the respondent was selectively excluded despite being eligible for regularisation since 2001. In this context, the Court relied on the earlier decision of a Coordinate Bench in State of J&K v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail, which held that workers styled as casual labourers but engaged continuously are, in effect, daily rated workers.
Strengthening its reasoning, the High Court also referred to recent Supreme Court judgments, including Jaggo v. Union of India and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., reiterating that Uma Devi cannot be invoked to justify exploitation through long-term temporary arrangements where the employment is perennial and the State has failed to regularise posts despite continuous need.
Finding no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal’s reasoning, the High Court upheld the direction for regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994, particularly as the engagement was prior to the cut-off date and the service had continued uninterrupted for nearly three decades. Concluding that the writ petition lacked merit, the Court dismissed the challenge filed by the UT administration.
Case Title: U. T. of J&K and others vs. Kashmir Singh
Case No.: WP(C) No. 3303/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Chief Justice Arun Palli and Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajnesh Oswal
Counsel for the Appellant: Sr. AAG Monika Kohli,
Counsel for the Respondent: None
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :