WP(C) No.2583/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 14.08.2026 Pronounced on: 29.08.2026 Uploaded on: 29.08.2026 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full WP(C) No.2583/2023 HAKEEM ISHFAQ AHMAD & OTHERS …PETITIONER(S) Through: - Ms. Syed Tabasum Zaffar Jalali, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Mohammad Younis, Assisting Counsel. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have sought a direction upon the respondents to regularize their services on the posts which they are holding at present, with all consequential benefits. 2) As per case of the petitioners, they are employees of the J&K Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited (SICOP). It has been submitted that the SICOP is a fully owned Government company and it came into WP(C) No.2583/2023 existence in the year 1975 and has been incorporated under the Companies Act. 3) According to the petitioners, they were appointed in SICOP on different dates, as mentioned in Annexure-I to the writ petition and all of them have completed more than seven years of service in the Corporation. It has been submitted that the petitioners are working for the last two decades on temporary, ad hoc and contractual basis and they are holding different posts, including District Manager, Technical Assistant, P.A. to General Manager, J.E., Driver, Assistant Accountant, Ledger Assistant, Legal Assistant and Public Paravkar and they are being paid salary on the basis of regular pay scales. 4) It has been submitted that SICOP has framed the Jammu & Kashmir Industrial Development Corporation (SICOP) Staff Service Rules, 1977, and the conditions of service of its employees are regulated by the decisions of the Board of Directors. 5) According to the petitioners, in 83rd meeting of the Board of Directors of SICOP, held on 10.07.2012, a decision was taken to constitute a Committee of senior officers of the Corporation, namely, Senior General Manager, Jammu, WP(C) No.2583/2023 Senior General Manager, Finance/Hqr. Financial Advisor, CAO & General Manager (Administration). The said Committee is stated to have furnished its report with regard to regularization of services of temporary/ad hoc employees of the Corporation, which was placed before the Board of Directors. It has further been submitted that in the 84th meeting of the Board of Directors, held on 07.08.2014, the Board formulated a regularization policy, according to which the employees were in employment of the Corporation for the last seven years were to be regularized in the services of the Corporation as per their merit and the employees who have not completed seven years of active service in the Corporation, the Managing Director was to constitute a Committee of senior officers to examine each case with respect to recruitment, performance, qualification and merit and to take a decision on regularization. 6) It has been submitted that the petitioners are drawing salary on regular pay scales and they are also drawing medical allowance and TA/DA on the rates as are applicable to Government servants. They have also been accorded the benefit of pay revisions. It has been alleged that the respondents have implemented the scheme with regard to regularization, as approved by the Board of Directors, on a WP(C) No.2583/2023 piecemeal and pick-and-choose basis. In fact, some of the employees having lesser length of service than the petitioners have been regularized by the respondent Corporation. In this regard, the petitioners have illustrated the cases of some of the employees who have been regularized by the respondent Corporation. 7) According to the petitioners, they have been invidiously discriminated against and their claim for regularization has not been considered by the respondents, though they are similarly situated to the employees who have already been regularized. 8) It has been contended that since the petitioners are continuously working with the respondent Corporation, it is to be presumed that they not only possess the eligibility criteria for the posts which they are holding, but they have also gained sufficient experience in discharging the functions attached to those posts. It has also been submitted that the respondents have admitted that they require the services of the petitioners. It has been submitted that the petitioners, after having worked for decades together, have a legitimate expectation that their services will be regularized. It has further been submitted that the petitioners made a number of representations to the WP(C) No.2583/2023 respondents seeking regularization of their services, but without any success which has prompted them to knock at the doors of this Court. 9) The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their reply, wherein it has been submitted that the petitioners have been engaged by the respondent Corporation to discharge their function on consolidated/ need/contractual/ contingency basis in different capacities and on different wage components, under the supervision of permanent employees of the Corporation. It has been submitted that the arrangement was made on a temporary basis. According to the respondents, the Government, vide circulars dated 17.03.2015 and 24.05.2019, imposed a ban on engagement of casual/seasonal/ad hoc/contractual/ consolidated/need based employees. It has further been submitted that by vide Government order No.43-F of 2015, the authority to engage casual/seasonal/contractual/ consolidated/daily wagers was withdrawn with immediate effect. Therefore, the respondents do not have the competence to extend or continue the services of the petitioners. 10) It has been submitted that having regard to the nature of their engagement, the petitioners have no vested right to WP(C) No.2583/2023 continue or to seek regularization of their services. It has also been submitted that the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, has not been adopted by the Board of Directors for regularization of ad hoc or contractual employees and, therefore, the petitioners cannot seek regularization of their services. It has also been contended that the petitioners were not engaged through a proper selection process and, as such, their services cannot be regularized. 11) According to the respondents, the petitioners were engaged on consolidated/contractual/contingency basis in different capacities to tide over the shortage of manpower and the arrangement was made only on temporary basis. It has been contended that mere continuance of the petitioners for a long period of time cannot clothe them with any right to seek regularization. 12) While admitting that Mubashir Bashir, Mohammad Abbas, Ashiq Hussain and Rameez Hassan were engaged in the services of the Corporation during the years 2010 and 2011, it has been submitted by the respondents that these employees were possessing degrees/diploma in engineering courses and, as such, were placed in higher seniority. Regarding Vishal Mahajan, it has been submitted that IT WP(C) No.2583/2023 Wing of the SICOP was commissioned in the year 2017 and there was a dire requirement of IT professionals and in order to meet the requirement, the services of Vishal Mahajan were engaged, but he has not been regularized as yet. Regarding Sachin Sharma, it has been submitted that his services have been engaged purely on a temporary basis. 13) It has further been submitted that SIDCO and SICOP have been merged together into J&KIDC as per the decision taken on 25.03.2022 and it was also decided that the decision regarding need based and consolidated employees engaged in SIDCO and SICOP shall be taken by the Board of Directors of J&KIDC. It has also been submitted that the roadmap of J&KIDC is under progress and there is no policy as on date approved by the Government for regularization of daily wagers and contractual employees and, as such, the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable. 14) The petitioners have filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents, in which they have reiterated that the respondent Corporation has its own service rules and that its Board of Directors is competent to take decisions with regard to service conditions of its employees and it is on the basis of this legal position that the Board of Directors, in its WP(C) No.2583/2023 84th meeting, took a decision for regularization of services of temporary/ad hoc employees. The petitioners have also placed on record a copy of the decision taken by the Board of Directors in its 84thmeeting vide Agenda Item No. 84.09. The petitioners have also placed on record orders of regularization of temporary employees issued by the respondent Corporation in favour of certain persons from time to time. 15) It has been contended that most of the petitioners are at the verge of their retirement and they been serving with the respondent Corporation for more than 35 years and, as such, they are entitled to be regularized in service. It has been submitted that the respondent Corporation is not subject to control of Government and being an autonomous Corporation, its Board of Director is competent to take any decision with regard to service conditions of its employees. 16) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the material on record, including the record produced by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. 17) It is an admitted position that the petitioners have been engaged by the respondent Corporation on various WP(C) No.2583/2023 posts on different dates. The details with regard to engagement of the petitioners and all other relevant particulars as given in Annexure-I to the writ petition are reproduced as under: S. No. Name of the employee Parentage R/O Date of Birth Date of 1st appointment vide order/endorsement No. Consolidated salary of Rs. Date of placement in the regular pay band/grade pay of Rs. Presently working in the regular pay band / grad pay of Rs. 1. Hakeem Ishfaq Ahmad Lt. Hakeem Ghulam Mustafa Bagh e Sundar Chattabal, Sgr. 3/1/1974 12/1/2010 7500/ 01-06-2011 5200-20200 (2400) 21-12-2017 9300-34800 (2800) 2. Mohammad Saleem Padder Gh Mohd Padder Omoh Verinag 3/25/1976 4/10/1998 6000/- 2016 4440-7440 (1300) 2020 5200-20200 (1800) 3. Mohammad Yousuf Lone Mohd Shaban Lone Pamposh colony Natipora 11/24/1976 4/1/2005 1800/- 2011 Rs. 4440-7440 (1300) 2020 5200-20200 (2400) 4. Farooq Ahmad Dar Abdul Gani Dar Rajpora Pulwama 3/10/1975 5/13/2005 1800/- 31-06-2016 Rs. 4440-7440 (1300) 29-10-2020 5200-20200 (1800) 5. Tika Ram Thapa Dam Bahadur Thapa Panuhu Nepal 3/17/1979 2005 3750/- 01-01-2010 Rs. 4440-7440 (1300) 25-08-2017 5200-20200 (1800) 6. Mushtaq Ahmad Wani Abdul Majeed Wani Zakura Srinagar 12/30/1989 Jan-08 2400/- 29-06-2018 Rs. 4440-7440 (1300) Rs. 4440-7440 (1300) 7. Shabir Ahmad Wani Khazir Ahmad Wani Shalimar 12/12/1981 10/3/2010 3500/- 24-11-2017 5200-20200 (1800) 21-12-2020 5200-20200 (2400) 8. Shaheena Akhter Nazir Ahmad Wani Rambagh balla 5/5/1978 3/9/2010 3300/- 05-11-2012 5200-20200 (2400) 26-07-2021 9300-34800 (2800) 9. Bilal Ahmad Bhat Abdul Rashid Bhat Haft chinar Srinagar 10/29/1982 10/10/2010 5000/- 25-08-2017 5200-20200 (1800) 28-10-2020 5200-20200 (2400) 10. Mushtaq Ahamd Bhat Abdul Majid Bhat Abanshah HMT Zainakote 9/27/1990 11/12/2010 1200/- 01-01-2016 Rs. 4440-7440 (1300) 5200-20200 (2400) 11 Nazir Hussain Wani Ali Mohammad Wani Mohalla Chattabal Srinagar 12/24/1982 10/10/2010 3300/- 16-01-2013 Rs. 4440-7440 (1300) 28-10-2020 5200-20200 (1800) 12 Muzaffar Ahmad Wani Gh Rasool Wani Kalwal Mohalla Rainawari 1/4/1975 12/8/2010 5000/- 06-11-2013 5200-20200 (1800) 2020 9300- 34800 (2800) 13 Imtiyaz Ahmad Rather Mehraj ud din Rather Boulevard Srinagar 10/12/1983 1/7/2011 6000/- 07-06-2011 5200-20200 (2400) 21-09-2017 9300-34800 (2800) 14 Wahid Ali Ali Mohammad Najar Inside Kathi Darwaza Rainawari 7/12/1987 5/18/2011 6000/- 17-05-2012 5200-20200 (2400) 21-09-2017 5200-20200 (2400) WP(C) No.2583/2023 15 Gazzenfar Hassan Zargar Ghulam Mohammad Zargar Water Hail Budgam 9/10/1989 6/1/2011 5000/- 25-10-2017 5200-20200 (1800) 29-10-2020 5200-20200 (2400) 16 Mohammad younis Bhat Ali Mohammad Bhat Dharam Bugh Kralpora 11/9/1984 10/22/2012 6000/- 24-11-2017 5200-20200 (1800) 21-12-2020 5200-20200 (2400) 17 Amir Gulzar Gulzar Ahmad bhat Naid Doori Nowshara 3/7/1991 11/16/2012 3750/- 27-12-2018 Rs. 4440-7440 (1300) 08-08-2021 5200-20200 (1800) 18 Irfan Afzal Shah Mohammad Afzal Shah Housing Coloney Bemina 9/16/1982 6/26/2013 8000/- 24-11-2017 5200-20200 (1800) 29-10-2020 5200-20200 (2400) 19 Majid Zaman Drabu Mohammad Shafi Drabu Rajpora Pulwama 2/2/1994 7/15/2013 7000/- 08-03-2019 Rs. 4440-7440 (1300) Rs. 4440-7440 (1300) 20 Majid Ali Sheikh Gh Ali shiekh Sarkoot kishtwar 4/14/1988 6/13/2013 6000/- April 2016 5200-20200 (1800) 2021 5200-20200 (2400) 21 Faizan Ahmad Kutay Imtiyaz ahmad Kutay 47-B opp C.D Hospital Dalgate Srinagar 5/23/1988 10/24/2013 10000/- 14-03-2015 5200-20200 (1800) 07/2020 5200-20200 (2400) 22 Bilal Ahmad Kichloo Talib Hussain Kichloo Kishtwar 12/13/1986 12/17/2013 8000/- 01-10-2014 5200-20200 (1800) 21-12-2020 5200-20200 (2400) 18) From the aforesaid chart, it is clear that the petitioners have been initially engaged on consolidated salary, whereafter they have been placed in regular pay scales. It is also clear that the petitioners have been engaged with the respondent Corporation on different dates ranging from the year 1998 to 2013. Thus, as on date, the petitioners have been working with the respondent Corporation for a period ranging from 13 to 28 years. The record produced by the respondent Corporation would reveal that the services of the petitioners have been extended by the respondents from time to time and their services are continuing till date. In fact, it was only on 09.10.2023 that this Court directed maintenance of status quo with regard to the present position of the petitioners. WP(C) No.2583/2023 Until that date, the services of the petitioners were being extended by the respondent Corporation from time to time without there being any direction from any Court. 19) The material placed on record by the petitioners, which has not been disputed by the respondent Corporation, would reveal that the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation, in its 83rd meeting, deliberated upon the regularization of ad hoc/contractual/consolidated employees engaged on need basis from time to time. The Board constituted a Committee of officers comprising Senior General Manager, General Manager Projects, Jammu, General Manager Projects, Kashmir and Divisional Manager Headquarter to look into the issue. The Committee recommended that, in view of mass retirement during last four to five years, engagement of employees on need basis was imperative and necessary for running the affairs of the Corporation. It also recommended that all these adhoc/ contractual/consolidated employees engaged on need basis from time to time be regularized in a phased manner, keeping in view their qualification and the length of service rendered in the Corporation. The Committee also laid down the criteria for regularization of the employees, in the following manner: WP(C) No.2583/2023 1. Employees appointed on adhoc or Contractual or Consolidated basis shall be regularized on minimum of pay scale and fulfilment of following conditions: I. That he/she continues on such posts since appointment II. That he/she possessed the requisite qualification and eligibility for the post on the date of his/her appointment on Adhoc or Contractual or Consolidated basis as prescribed under the recruitment rules governing their service or post that no disciplinary/ criminal proceedings are pending against him/her on the appointed day. III. That the appointee shall be on probation for a period of 3 years after placing in the grade. IV. Relaxation in upper age limit has prescribed under the rules for entering into the service shall be relaxed in case of Adhoc or Contractual or Consolidated appointees. V. That he/she has rendered 5 or more years of service in the corporation. VI. That he/she have rendered less than 5 years of service shall be regularized after completing minimum service required subsequently. However, an appointee who has shown exceptional merit and working the Managing Director shall be vested with powers for his/her early regularization. Fixation of pay: I. Every regularized employee from the date of his/her regularization be entitled to the fixation of pay in the time scale of pay applicable to the post against which he/she is regularized. II. Any employee who will furnish false information with regard to his/her date of birth & educational qualifications shall be liable for termination besides referring the case to the Police for investigation. To this effect each employee shall have to furnish an affidavit duly attested by 1" class Magistrate. WP(C) No.2583/2023 20) The aforesaid recommendations of the Committee came up for deliberation during 84th meeting of the Board of Directors of SICOP held on 07.08.2014. The Board of Directors passed the following resolution on Agenda Item No.84.09: Engagement of Consolidated /Temporary/need basis employees The issue was discussed in detail. The MD informed the Board that 107 officers/officials of the Corporation working at different levels retired from the service in last 7 years for which working arrangements had to be made. Similarly, 8 new Districts were created in the State and the Corporation was required to deploy required paraphernalia for management of establishment at the newly created districts. Added to this was increased volume of business that the Corporation came to handle during this period. All this required making working arrangements for the management of the Corporation. This position was previously also reported to the Board at its 83rd meeting held on 10th July, 2012 when the decision taken was that the Managing Director should form a Committee of Officers to look into these appointments and suggest measures that need to be taken. The Committee's report was discussed in meeting threadbare and the decisions taken in light of its recommendations were as follows: 3. Employees who are in the appointment of the Corporation for last 7 years would be regularized in Corporation Services as per their merit. 4. In case of other employees, i.e., those who have not so far completed 7 years of active service in the Corporation, the MD would constitute a committee of senior officer who will examine each case with respect to requirement performance, qualifications and merit to take a decision on regularization. WP(C) No.2583/2023 21) A plain reading of the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors in its 84th meeting would reveal that a decision was taken that the employees who are in the employment of the Corporation for the last seven years would be regularized in the services of the Corporation as per their merit and in the case of other employees who had not completed seven years of service in the Corporation, a Committee was to be constituted by the Managing Director to examine each case with respect to requirement, performance, qualifications and merit and to take a decision for their regularization. 22) There is no dispute to the fact that the respondent Corporation is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and, as such, it has an independent identity distinct from the Government. Any decision taken by the Government would not ipso facto apply to the employees of the respondent Corporation. It is only those decisions and orders of the Government which are adopted by the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation that would apply to its employees. 23) Having regard to the distinct identity of the respondent Corporation, its Board of Directors has the authority and competence to frame a regularization policy WP(C) No.2583/2023 for its employees even though there may not be any such policy in vogue in the Government. Merely because the respondent Corporation has now been incorporated/ merged into a new entity i.e. J&K IDC, the previous decisions taken by the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation would not get obliterated unless the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation or the new entity decides to scrap that policy. It is not the case of the respondents that the decision taken in the 84th meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation has been revoked by any subsequent resolution of the Board of Directors. Therefore, the policy of regularization of ad hoc, temporary, contractual and consolidated employees, as laid down in the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation on 07.08.2014 in its 84th meeting, still holds the field. 24) As per the policy of regularization of the respondent Corporation, all those employees who had completed seven years of service on ad hoc/contractual/consolidated basis as on the date of adoption of the resolution, i.e., 07.08.2014, have to be regularized in the services of the Corporation as per their merit and the cases of other WP(C) No.2583/2023 employees have to be considered by a Committee to be constituted by the Managing Director on individual basis. 25) In the face of aforesaid facts, the stand of the respondents in denying regularization of services of the petitioners on the ground that there is no legal framework or policy of the Government in place to regularize the services of employees like the petitioners is not legally tenable. 26) As is clear from the narration of facts, the petitioners have been working with the respondent Corporation for the last 13 to 28 years uninterruptedly. The petitioners have also placed on record information which they have obtained from the respondent Corporation under the Right to Information Act, which shows that from January 2010 onwards, the respondent Corporation has regularized the services of at least nine employees. The petitioners have also placed on record photocopies of the orders issued by the respondent Corporation for regularization of services of these employees. This action of the respondents has raised a legitimate expectation in favour of the petitioners that, like their colleagues, they would also be considered for regularization upon fulfilling the eligibility criteria laid down in the Board resolution dated 07.08.2014. WP(C) No.2583/2023 27) The Supreme Court has, in Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71, analyzed the legal position pertaining to the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the following manner: “7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non- arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is `fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but provides for control of its exercise by judicial review. 8. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a Legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non- arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration a fair decision making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the WP(C) No.2583/2023 claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non- arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent.” 28) From the aforesaid analysis of the legal position, it is clear that legitimate expectation of a citizen may not, by itself, be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it renders the decision of a public authority arbitrary, as due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, which is a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. 29) As already stated, there is a policy of regularization of temporary, consolidated, ad hoc and contractual employees in force in the respondent Corporation and some of the colleagues of the petitioners who are similarly situated and whose regularization orders have been placed on record by the petitioners along with their rejoinder, have already been regularized in service. The petitioners have a legitimate expectation that their cases for regularization of their services would also be considered. The respondents have been unable to carve out any distinction or difference between the cases of the petitioners and the cases of those WP(C) No.2583/2023 contractual appointees whose services have been regularized from time to time, as mentioned in Annexure-II to the rejoinder affidavit. In fact, a perusal of the rejoinder affidavit would reveal that services of some of the employees have been regularized even before completion of seven years of service. Therefore, a legitimate expectation had arisen in favour of the petitioners that their cases would be treated in similar manner. The respondents, by declining to extend similar treatment to the petitioners without there being any discernible distinction between the two sets of cases, have acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Thus, the action of the respondents in denying the benefit of regularization to the petitioners cannot be sustained in law. 30) Apart from the above, the petitioners, as already stated, have been working on consolidated/adhoc/ contractual basis for the period ranging from 13 to 28 years. They have been appointed against clear vacancies arising on account of retirement of employees of the respondent Corporation, as has been clearly admitted by the respondents in their reply. It is not the case of the respondents that the services of the petitioners are not required by them. It is also an admitted position that the term of engagement of the petitioners is being continued by WP(C) No.2583/2023 the respondents from time to time and that such continuation existed for years together without there being any interim order of the Court to that effect until 09.10.2023. Therefore, their cases for regularisation have to be considered by the respondent-Corporation in the light of the policy adopted by the Board in its meeting dated 07.08.2014. 31) A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, made a distinction between ‘irregular’ and ‘illegal’ appointments and has emphasized the importance of considering certain appointments even if the same were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed rules and procedures, by observing that the same cannot be said to have been made illegally. Para (53) of the said judgment is relevant to the context and the same is reproduced as under: “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B.N. Nagarajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this WP(C) No.2583/2023 Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 32) The issue with regard to regularization of temporary employees has recently been deliberated upon by the Supreme court in the case of Vinod Kumar and others etc. vs. Union of India and others, (2024) 9 SCC 324. The Court, after taking notice of the aforesaid observations made by it in Uma Devi’s case (supra), observed that reliance on procedural formalities cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service 33) Again, in Jaggo v. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, the Supreme Court explained the ratio laid down by it in Uma Devi’s case (supra) in the following manner: 20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize WP(C) No.2583/2023 employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below: “6. 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). 7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if WP(C) No.2583/2023 were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…” 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment : continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in WP(C) No.2583/2023 contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment. 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long- term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed WP(C) No.2583/2023 without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 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 WP(C) No.2583/2023 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. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 34) In the face of the aforesaid legal position, the contention of the respondents that at present the Government does not have a regularization policy for ad hoc, temporary, contractual and consolidated employees, or that the respondent Corporation has merged with J&K IDC, is without any substance. As already stated, the respondent Corporation has its own independent existence and there is a policy of regularization of ad hoc, contractual and consolidated employees in place in terms of the resolution WP(C) No.2583/2023 of the Board of Directors dated 07.08.2014, which has not been revoked so far. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be denied the benefit of regularization after having served for decades together with the respondent Corporation to the entire satisfaction of the employer given the fact that they have been appointed against the vacant post. 35) In view of the foregoing discussion, even by virtue of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Uma Dev’s case (supra), as explained in Vinod Kumar and Jaggo’s cases (supra), the petitioners have a vested right of regularization of their service after having put in more than ten years of service on contractual basis. Denying such relief to the petitioners would be contrary to the principles of justice and fairness and it would also amount to hostile discrimination against the petitioners vis-à-vis similarly situated employees who have already been extended the benefit of regularization of services. 36) For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider regularization of services of the petitioners on the posts on which they are working, from the date of completion of seven years of adhoc/consolidated/contractual/need based service with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary. WP(C) No.2583/2023 The needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a copy of this judgment is served upon them. 37) The record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar, 29.08.2026 “Bhat Altaf” Secretary Whether the Judgment is reportable: YES/NO