U.T. OF J&K Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of an order dtd. 4/4/2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu, Original Application No. 61/854/2020, titled 'Karnail Singh and others v. UT of Jammu & Kashmir and others', preferred by the respondents-applicants was allowed, and the petitioners were directed to regularize the services of the respondents-applicants, who had served as Daily Wagers/Daily Rated Workers for more than two decades continuously, in accordance with SRO 64 of 1994, after taking into account the observations made in the said order, and to issue appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks. The respondents-applicants were further held entitled to all consequential benefits, including wage arrears, from the date they became eligible for such regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 till the date of their actual regularization. Additionally, those respondents-applicants who had attained the age of superannuation were held eligible for pensionary benefits.

(2.) The petitioners have assailed the order dtd. 4/4/2025 on the grounds that the learned Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the engagement of the applicants, namely Mohd. Farooq, Ingrez Singh and Nasir Hussain, was made under the Social Forestry Project and not against any regular cadre or sanctioned post. It is further contended that the applicants did not place on record any document to establish the continuity of engagement, legality of appointment, or possession of the requisite academic qualifications, in order to justify their claim for regularization. It is also urged that the learned Tribunal erred in law in allowing the regularization of applicant Nos. 6 and 8, namely Nasir Hussain and Balwinder Singh, who were initially engaged at the age of 16 and 17 years respectively, in violation of Rule 4(b) of SRO 64 of 1994. Besides, it is contended that the regularization of applicant Nos. 1, 4 and 5, namely, Karnail Singh, Gharu Ram and Subash Chand, who are illiterate, 5th and 7th class pass respectively, is in clear violation of SRO 64 of 1994. Their regularization could not have been directed by the learned Tribunal in the absence of any specific finding that relaxation of the prescribed qualifications was duly considered and granted by the competent Administrative Department in terms of the proviso to Rule 4(c) of SRO 64 of 1994. The petitioners have also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and others to assail the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal.

(3.) Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law.