Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Preeti Sharma vs State Of J&K Through on 8 August, 2025
Sr. No. 81
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 31.07.2025
Pronounced on: 08.08.2025
SWP No. 242/2014
SWP No. 409/2014
WP(C) No. 943/2022
SWP No. 242/2014
1. Preeti Sharma
S/O Late Sh. Ram Krishan
R/O Bain Bajalta, Chak Largan
Tehsil & District Jammu.
2. Shameem Ahmed,
S/O Mohammad Ramzan,
R/O H. No. 786, Masjid Basti,
Bahu Fort, Jammu.
3. Abrar Ahmed,
S/O Kala Khan,
R/O Panihad,
Tehsil Kotranke Budhal
District Rajouri.
4. Kulbir Singh,
S/O Late Sh. Rattan Singh,
R/O Ramnagar, District Udhmapur
5. Rakesh Kumar,
S/O Late Sh. Kaka Ram,
R/O Solah, Tehsil & District Samba
6. Nazir Ahmed,
S/O Noor Ahmed,
R/O Sidhra Bye-Pass,
Tehsil & District Jammu ---Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Adv
Mr. Abhirash Sharma, Adv.
Vs
1. State of J&K through ..... Respondent(s)
Commissioner/Secretary to Government,
Forest Department, J&K, Jammu.
2. Chairman,
Pollution Control Board, J&K
Jammu.
3. Member Secretary,
Pollution Control Board, J&K,
Jammu.
2 SWP No. 242/2014
a/w two petitions.
4. Regional Director,
Pollution Control Board, Jammu.
5. District Officer,
Pollution Control Board, Udhampur.
6. District Officer,
Pollution Control Board, Kathua/Samba.
Through: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG.
SWP No.409/2014
1. Ramesh Lal, S/O Sh. Sain Dass
R/O Village Sherpur, Kathua
2. Ashanand, S/O Sh. Tara Chand
R/O Village Bamnal, Tehsil Bishnah,
District Jammu
3. Mohd. Kabir, S/O Sh. Abdul Gani
R/O Village Lah Tehsil Thanamandi,
Rajouri.
4. Dwarka Dass, S/O Sh. Jallu Ram,
R/O Village Badwana,
Tehsil & District, Samba.
5. Kewal Krishan, S/O Sh. Hans Raj
R/O Village Kotli Manotrian, Reasi
..... Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Adv
Mr. Abhirash Sharma, Adv.
Vs
1. State of J&K through ..... Respondent(s)
Commissioner/Secretary to Government,
Forest Department, J&K, Jammu.
2. J&K State Pollution Control Board
through Member Secretary,
Parivesh Bhawan Gladni Transport Nagar,
Jammu.
3. Chairman,
J&K State Pollution Control Board
Parivesh Bhawan Gladni Transport Nagar,
Jammu.
Through: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG.
WP(C) No. 943/2022
CM No. 2836/2022
3 SWP No. 242/2014
a/w two petitions.
1. Vijay Kumar, S/O Sh. Sain Dass
R/O Garh Pamasta, Dumma Udhampur
2. Ashok Singh, S/O Sh. Kishore Singh
R/O Hiranagar Tehsil Hiranagar
District Kathua.
3. Nirmal Singh, S/O Sh. Ishwar Dass,
R/O H. No. 1599, Sector-12
Nanak Nagar, Jammu. ---Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Adv
Mr. Abhirash Sharma, Adv.
Vs
1. Union Territory of J&K ..... Respondent(s)
through Secretary to Govt.
Forest Department, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu-180001.
2. Chairman,
J&K State Pollution Control Board, Jammu
Parivesh Bhawan, Forest Complex, Gladni,
Narwal Transport Nagar, Jammu-180004.
Through: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. As prayed for and with consensus of the learned counsel for the
parties, these three petitions are taken up for final consideration at this
admission stage. As all the writ petitions involve similar factual background,
they are proposed to be decided by this common order.
2. Petitioners in SWP No. 242/2014 have prayed for direction to the
respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners under the Jammu and
Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010; to command the
respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization with
retrospective effect and with all consequential benefits; that restraining the
4 SWP No. 242/2014
a/w two petitions.
respondents from referring these posts to SSRB or any other recruiting agency
till the cases of petitioners are considered for regularization.
2.1. The brief facts leading to filing this petition are that the petitioners,
employed as Drivers in the J&K State Pollution Control Board (for short ‘the
Board’) on a consolidated basis, has filed this writ petition seeking
regularization under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions)
Act, 2010; that they were appointed between 2007 and 2011 and have served
continuously for more than 15 years against clear vacancies; that despite being
eligible under the Act, which mandates regularization of those working on
adhoc, contractual, or consolidated for over seven years, the respondents have
refused to process their regularization and instead proposed to refer the posts to
the Service Selection Board. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners have approached
this court by way of filing this writ petition.
2.2. In SWP No. 409/2014, petitioners have prayed for a direction to the
respondents to consider and take decision on regularization of the petitioners in
the Class IV service of the respondent no.2 and to declare their status. It is
averred in the petition that the petitioners are serving as Orderlies on
consolidated basis and have more than ten years of service without any break;
that the length of service put in by the petitioners has vested in them an
entitlement for regularization and this regard proposal was also taking round in
the 26th Board meeting of the respondent no.2 but still the matter is being
protracted for the reasons best known to the respondents. Lastly, it is prayed that
respondents be directed to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners for
regularization.
5 SWP No. 242/2014
a/w two petitions.
2.3. Petitioners (03 in number) in WP(C) No. 943/2022 have, inter alia,
prayed for a direction to the respondents to regularize their services under the
provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010
as the petitioners, who were appointed as Need Based causal worker, Orderly
and Electrician, have rendered more than a decade of continuous service in the
respondent no.1 department and are still discharging their duties on consolidated
basis; that they have further prayed that upon regularization, all consequential
benefits be also granted to them from the date they have completed their seven
years of regular service.
3. Pursuant to notice, the official respondents have filed their objections,
in which, a categoric stand is taken by the respondents that the petitioners are
not entitled to regularization of services as their engagements have strictly been
made on need basis. They have refused to acknowledge the fact that petitioners
have been engaged and are working on consolidated basis. It has been pleaded
that the petitioners had been engaged on ‘need basis’ and in anyway cannot be
stated to be working on consolidated/daily wage/casual basis, so as to be eligible
to seek regularization in terms of Special Provisions Act, 2010. Moreover, the
petitioners do not qualify the requisite criteria/conditions.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that in all
other departments of the J&K State, the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir
Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 have been strictly implemented
and the petitioners are similarly situated and fully eligible and entitled to under
the Act for regularization and different yardstick cannot be applied to the cases
of the petitioners. Arguing that though Special Provisions Act, 2010 was not
6 SWP No. 242/2014
a/w two petitions.
specifically made applicable to the respondent Board, however, relief under the
Act has been granted to certain employees of the Board and the petitioners are
asking for the same relief in their cases also, as they are entitled to the same
under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 governing the
regularization of staff engaged on ad hoc/contractual/consolidated basis in view
of the decision of the Board of Directors of the Board.
5. Learned counsel for the official respondents, ex adverso, staunchly
argued that ‘need based’ employees cannot be regularized in terms of the J&K
Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 which is not applicable to the
services of respondent-Board and has prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the files and
considered the matter.
7. Allegedly, the petitioners have been working for longer periods and
more than seven years on ‘need basis’ with the respondent-J&K State Pollution
Control Board. It is also admitted fact that the provisions of the J&K Civil
Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 though not directly made applicable to
the services cadres of the J&K State Pollution Control Board, the Board,
however, in its 26th Board Meeting held on 25.06.2012, resolved amongst other
decisions to regularize temporary employees at Item No.3 of the Agenda, on the
subject of regularization of ad hoc employees, which is reproduced for ready
reference as under:-
Item No.3: Regularization of Adhoc Employees.
Like other Departments and Organization Pollution Control
Board also engaged some educated youth against different
7 SWP No. 242/2014
a/w two petitions.
vacancies in different capacities to tide over the shortage of
manpower. The engagement as well as their regularization of
services of these employees came through different scrutinizes
and have been discussed at various foras including the Board,
the State Government & the Hon’ble High Court. Even State
Vigilance Organization also took; the cognizance of the matter
w.r.t. 13 engagements made and necessary clarification has
been provided to it. Thereafter, on the directions of the Hon’ble
the State Government put on hold the method proposed for
dealing with the adhoc employees vide Govt. order dated
13.08.2004 copy whereof is placed as Annexure-B. Finally the
Government came up with a policy through a Legislation the
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Spl. Provisions Act 2010)
for regularization of the services of adhoc, contractual and
consolidated appointees on fulfillment of certain conditions
prescribed therein. Accordingly matter was taken up with the
Government for regularization of the services of adhoc and
other employees in accordance with the Rule-5 of the Act.
However, the Government is apparently of the view that the
Board being the Statutory Body can settle the issue at the
Board’s level itself.
It is accordingly proposed to regularize the services of
adhoc employees of the Board whose particulars are given in
Annexure-C on the touch stone of the J&K Civil Services
Special Provisions Act, 2010.
The Board members authorized Chairman, J&K
SPCB to take decision in light of Jammu & Kashmir Civil
Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 for regularization of the
adhoc, consolidated & contractual employees.”
8 SWP No. 242/2014
a/w two petitions.
8. It is clear from the decision taken at Item No.3 with regard to
regularization of ad hoc employees in its Board Meeting by the respondent-
Board that since the provisions of J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act,
2010 for regularization of the services of ad hoc/contractual/consolidated basis
is not applicable to the employees of the respondent-Board being a statutory
body and the Government had left it at the Board’s discretion to settle itself , the
Board, as such, resolved and authorized the Chairman, J&K State Pollution
Board to take a decision in the light of the J&K Civil Services (Special
Provisions) Act, 2010, for regularization of the ad hoc/contractual employees.
9. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case titled ‘Vinod Kumar & Ors
v. Union of India & Ors. reported as 2024 INSC 332 has held that long and
continuous services of temporary employees, warrant reclassification from
temporary to regular, if the roles they perform are substantive in nature and their
continuous service is akin to permanent employees. Relevant paragraph of the
said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High
Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific
circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have
continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at
the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights
that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous
service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for
vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection
process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes
their case from the appointments through back door entry as
discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).”
9 SWP No. 242/2014
a/w two petitions.
10. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in another case titled ‘Jaggo v. Union of
India & Ors, reported as 2024 INSC 1034’ relating to contractual/temporary
employees having long and continuous service has held as follows:
“26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail
the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments
adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its
principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny
legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment
aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular”
appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular
appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and
had served continuously for more than ten years, should be
considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However,
the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when
institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims
of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not
illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi
(supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the judgment’s explicit
acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate.
This selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit and
purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have
rendered indispensable services over decades.”
11. Admittedly, the petitioners in SWP No. 242/2014 have been working
as Drivers with the respondent Board, petitioners in SWP No. 409/2014 as
Orderlies and petitioners in SWP No. 943/2022 as Orderly/Electrician as need
based casual workers. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court and adoption of principles of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services
10 SWP No. 242/2014
a/w two petitions.
(Special Provisions) Act, 2010 by the respondent-Board, the petitioners in all the
three petitioners on completion of seven years of service even on ‘need basis’
are held to be entitled to be regularized in their respective positions.
12. Viewed thus, all the three petitions are allowed and the respondents
are directed to consider the regularization of all the petitioners, against the posts
held by them, subject to verification of their records, of course, in accordance
with law, from the dates they had completed seven years of their services.
13. Writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of along with connected
applications as allowed in the aforesaid terms . No order as to costs.
14. A copy of this Judgment shall be placed across every case file of the
clubbed cases.
(
(MA Chowdhary)
Jammu Judge
08.08.2025
Raj Kumar
Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable? : Yes/No.
Raj Kumar
2025.08.08 17:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document