HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CPSW No. 417/2018 in SWP No. 944/2014 Joginder Lal & Anr. …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Shayan Chouhan, Advocate. Vs Hirdesh Kumar, Commissioner Secretary to Govt. PDD & Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with Ms. Jagmeet Kour, Advocate. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 25.02.2026 1. The petitioners, through the medium of the present petition, have sought implementation of order dated 29.11.2017 whereby a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization with retrospective effect in the light of communication dated 18.01.2016 by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of said order. 2. As per the latest statement of facts filed by the respondents, consideration has been accorded to the claim of the petitioners and the same has been rejected in terms of consideration order dated 16.04.2018. A copy of the said order has been placed on record. 3. Heard and considered. 4. The contention of the petitioners before the writ court was that Regular List Sr. No. 37 2 CPSW No. 417/2018 posts were available for according consideration to their case for regularization of their services with retrospective effect from the date when they had completed seven years of service as daily rated workers. It was further contention of the petitioners before the writ court that their juniors were given effect of regularization of their services from the year 2000 whereas in their case, the effect of regularization has been given from 02.07.2003. On the basis of these contentions, the learned writ court issued directions for consideration of regularization of services of the petitioners with retrospective effect. 5. In the consideration order passed by the respondents, it has been indicated that even though posts were available in the year 2000, yet two employees, namely, Rakesh Kumar and Rajesh Singh, senior to the petitioners, were adjusted against these vacancies and their services were regularized w.e.f., 01.01.2000, whereas, in the case of the petitioners on account of non-availability of vacancies in the said year, their services were regularized w.e.f., 01.01.2003, the date when the vacancies became available. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents have taken a contradictory stand so far as the seniority of the petitioners and Rakesh Kumar and Rajesh Singh is concerned. In this regard, it is to be noted that in the consideration order dated 16.04.2018, it has been clearly 3 CPSW No. 417/2018 indicated that Rakesh Kumar was engaged as daily rated worker on 01.02.1990, Rajesh Singh was engaged as daily rated worker on 01.03.1989 whereas, petitioner No. 1-Joginder Lal was engaged as daily rated worked in May, 1990 and petitioner No. 2-Sham Lal was engaged as daily rated worker in October, 1990. The respondents have also placed on record documents and certificates which go on to show that Rakesh Kumar and Rajesh Singh were engaged prior to the engagement of the petitioners as daily rated workers, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they are rank senior to Rakesh Kumar and Rajesh Singh is not borne out from the record. 7. Apart from the above, it is to be noted that Rakesh Kumar and Rajesh Singh with whom the petitioners are claiming parity were also not regularized immediately upon completion of seven years of service as daily rated workers. Both of them were regularized in the year 2000, whereas they had completed seven years of service as daily rated workers in the year 1996/1997. Same treatment has been given to the petitioners, who instead of being regularized after completion of seven years as daily rated workers, have been regularized in the year 2003 when the vacancies became available. Thus, no discrimination has been meted out by the respondents against the petitioners. 8. In view of the above, it cannot be stated that consideration of 4 CPSW No. 417/2018 the case of the petitioners for their retrospective regularization is not in tune with the judgment of the writ court. The contention of the petitioners, in this regard, is misconceived. Since the respondents have passed the consideration order, as such, the judgment of the writ court stands complied with. 9. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are closed and the petition is dismissed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 25.02.2026 Naresh/Secy. Naresh Kumar 2026.02.11 05:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document