Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ut Of J&K Th vs Bindu Devi @ Bindu on 6 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2162-DB
Serial No. 41
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 2134/2025
CAV No. 1013/2025
1.UT of J&K th. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Commissioner/Secretary to the Govt,
Floriculture Deptt.
2. Director Floriculture, Garden and
Parks Department, Jammu
Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA.
vs
Bindu Devi @ Bindu ..... Respondent(s)
W/o Lt. Raj Singh (Original Appellant)
Through: Mr. F. A. Natnoo, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
06.08.2025
1. This petition, by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and
Director, Floriculture, Garden and Parks, Jammu, is directed against
an order and judgment dated 02.04.2025, passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal Bench, Jammu (“the Tribunal”) in TA No.
61/2126/2020 titled Bindu Devi Vs. UT of J&K and Ors., whereby
the Tribunal has allowed the petition of the respondent and quashed
order No. 349 of 2018 dated 03.02.2018, passed by petitioner No. 2
in compliance of judgment dated 09.11.2016 passed in SWP No.
310/2016 and directed the petitioners herein to regularize the services
of husband of the respondent, namely, Raj Singh from the date of
completion of seven years of service with all benefits including the
arrears. The Tribunal has further directed that all the arrears, which
2 WP(C) No. 2134/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2162-DB
were payable to the deceased-employee, shall be released in favour
of the respondent, the wife of the deceased-employee.
2. The judgment impugned is challenged by the petitioners on multiple
grounds. However, before we advert to the grounds of challenge
urged by Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, a
brief sketch of the factual background, leading to the filing of this
petition would be worthwhile.
3. The respondent was engaged as a daily-rated worker on 01.02.1991,
though, he was sometimes styled as “special labour” and sometimes a
“casual labour”. He continued in the engagement for pretty long time
and completed more than seven years of continuous service as such.
The case of the respondent was submitted by the concerned
Directorate to the Administrative Department for regularization in
terms of SRO 64 of 1994, but the same was rejected by the Finance
Department for the reasons which are contained in the
communication of the Administrative Department bearing No.
BPE/Flori/39/2014 dated 28.07.2015. The claim of the respondent for
regularization was rejected on the sole ground that he was engaged as
a “special labour” and not a “daily-rated worker” and therefore, was
not entitled to regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed SWP No. 310 of 2016,
seeking inter alia a direction to the competent authority to consider
his case for regularization by treating him as a daily-rated worker.
The respondent relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court
3 WP(C) No. 2134/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2162-DB
passed State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Anuradha, (2011) I JKJ 870(HC).
The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.11.2016. The
impugned order, rejecting the claim of the respondent for
regularization dated 28.07.2015, was quashed and a direction was
issued to the competent authority to consider the case of the
respondent for regularization in terms of the Division Bench
judgment passed in the case of Anuradha (supra) by passing a
speaking order.
5. The aforesaid judgment attained finality when the letters patent
appeal filed by the State came to be dismissed. In compliance with
the judgment dated 09.11.2016 (supra), the case of the respondent for
regularization was considered by the Directorate of Floriculture,
Jammu and vide order No. 349 of 2018 dated 03.02.2018, the same
was rejected again on the same ground that the respondent was in the
engagement of the petitioners as „labourer‟ and not even a „casual
labourer‟. The Director, Department of Floriculture, Jammu,
however, observed that the case of the respondent could be
considered in terms of SRO 520 dated 21.12.2017. It is this order of
consideration dated 03.02.2018, which was called in question by the
respondent in TA No. 2126 of 2020. The Tribunal, has, vide order
and judgment impugned, allowed the TA.
6. It needs to be noticed that during the pendency of TA before the
Tribunal, the original petitioner-Raj Singh passed away on
05.01.2025 and was substituted by her wife, the respondent herein.
4 WP(C) No. 2134/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2162-DB
7. It is in this background and feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed
by the Tribunal, the petitioners are before us invoking extraordinary
writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material on
record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by
the Tribunal is factually and legally correct and the view taken by the
Tribunal on the basis of judgments of this Court, particularly the
judgment passed in the case of Anuradha, is well founded and
unexceptionable. The claim of the respondent for regularization
under SRO 64 of 1994 has been time and again rejected on the sole
ground that he was engaged as a “special labour” and not a daily-
rated worker and therefore, was not falling within the ambit of SRO
64 of 1994.
9. Though the plea was earlier rejected by this Court and the order
passed on the aforesaid reasoning and ground was quashed, yet the
petitioners persisted with their misconceived notion and passed an
order of rejection of the claim of the respondent for regularization on
the self-same ground. The passing of the order dated 03.02.2018,
which was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal, was, on
the face of it, contemptuous and ought to have been dealt with
accordingly.
10. Be that as it may, the Tribunal having surveyed the entire case law on
the subject came to the conclusion that the nomenclature given to an
5 WP(C) No. 2134/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2162-DB
employee is not a determining factor, but it is the actual work and the
duties performed by such an employee. If an employee, who is even
engaged as a labourer continues for decades together and such daily
wage employee cannot be said to be either a seasonal labour or a
casual labour. The fact that the respondent remained in the service of
petitioners since 01.02.1991, till his death somewhere in the year
2025, is itself a proof of the fact that he was continuously working as
per his engagement with the respondents and was performing the job
akin to the job performed by a daily-rated worker. It is not the case of
the petitioners that he was either a part time employee or was being
paid the wages other than a daily wage.
11. Viewed from any angle, the respondent was all along working as a
daily-rated worker and has, thus, qualified to be regularized as Helper
under SRO 64 of 1994 after completion of continuous daily wage
service of seven years. The Tribunal has elaborately discussed the
case law on the issue and we do not intend to reiterate the same in
this judgment.
12. Suffice it to say that the respondent, who was engaged as a labourer
in the year 1991 to perform the services of a daily wager on
01.02.1991, acquired a right of consideration to be regularized under
SRO 64 of 1994 on completion of seven years of services as such.
This issue stands already clinched by a judgment of learned Single
Judge dated 09.11.2016 passed in SWP No. 310/2016, which stands
upheld by the Division Bench by rejecting the letters patent appeal
6 WP(C) No. 2134/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2162-DB
filed thereagainst by the petitioners. The issue was, therefore, no
longer open to be raised by the respondents.
13. To be fair to Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned GA, we would like to
address a new point raised by him for the first time before us. He
submits that in the absence of Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC)
possessed by the respondent, regularization order could not have
been issued in his favour. We find this ground taken before us, or
even before Tribunal, totally preposterous. In none of the rejection
orders passed by the petitioners, there is even a whisper to this aspect
of the matter. Be that as it may, the respondent, who is found entitled
to regularization has to fulfil the requirements of SRO 64 of 1994 and
his regularization ordered by the Tribunal is always subject to
fulfilment of requisite formalities required for permanent
employment with the Government.
14. For the foregoing reasons and also for the elaborate reasons
contained in the judgment impugned, we find no merit in this petition
and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
Jammu
06.08.2025
Vishal Sharma