WP(C) No. 3071/2025 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case No. WP(C) No. 3071/2025 Date of pronouncement:- 07.11.2025 Date of uploading:- 10.11.2025 UT of J&K and ors. …..Appellants Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Vs Tilak Raj .…. Respondents Through: Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE JUDGMENT 07.11.2025 1. With the consensus of learned counsels, the petition is taken up on board for hearing. 2. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court against the order and judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench (the Tribunal) in OA No. 61/588/2024 titled Tilak Raj Vs. UT of J&K and ors., whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioners herein to regularize the services of the respondent in accordance with SRO No. 64 of 1994 and to release all the consequential benefits. 3. The challenge to the order of the Tribunal is thrown fundamentally on the ground that the respondent herein was engaged as need based worker for rendering casual services after Sr. No. 44 WP(C) No. 3071/2025 31.03.1994, therefore, he is not eligible to be regularized in terms of SRO No. 64 of 1994. 4. The second ground of challenge to the impugned order is that the land donated by the father of the respondent for construction of a dug well by PHE department is the State land, therefore, claim of the respondent for providing the job in lieu of the land is misleading. 5. It appears that the Tribunal while allowing the OA filed by the respondent Tilak Raj principally placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Jaggo Vs. Union of India and ors reported as, 2024 SCC Online 3826, and, thus, reasoning prevailed in issuing direction for regularization of service of the respondent was the long and uninterrupted continuity of service of the respondent and doctrine of legitimate expectation. 6. At this stage, few facts need to be noticed that the respondent-Tilak Raj came to be engaged as daily wager to perform the duty of a Motorman and admittedly, ever since 01.07.1995, he continued to perform his duty till he superannuated on 30.04.2025. However, the status of the respondent engagement as daily wager though is disputed by the petitioners as according to them, the respondent was engaged on need bases for rendering casual services, nonetheless there is no denying to the fact that he continued to perform the duties over a period of about 30 years as such. WP(C) No. 3071/2025 7. The factum of donation of land though not denied by the petitioners but they had come forward with a plea that the land so donated was a State land but at the same time, the assertion of the respondent that the land mutated in the name of his father is not traversed by any convincing evidence. 8. Be that as it may, after extracting work from the respondent continuously for about 30 years, it does not lie in the mouth of the State to assert that status of the respondent was that of a casual worker or he was engaged on need basis, rather the continuity of the respondent in the department in whatever capacity, goes to show the permanency of the work, he was made to perform till he attained the age of retirement, thus, State being model employer is not expected to resort to the policy of hire and fire. 9. The State being the welfare State is expected to lead by example, and cannot resort to the policy of hire and fire, as same would amount to exploitative engagement, particularly when it is continuous and uninterrupted work over a long period. We are fortified in our view besides the authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in case “Jaggo vs. Union of India and others” reported as 2024 SCC Online 3826, the law laid down in “Shripal and another vs. Nagar Nigam” reported as 2025 SCC Online SC 221 held thus: “14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of WP(C) No. 3071/2025 statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily- wage status or continued unfair practices”. 10. The other contention of the petitioners that the engagement of the respondent was need based is also refuted by the admitted fact that the respondent had been performing continuous and uninterrupted duties for more than two decades, therefore, such work cannot be termed as temporary, rather same with the passage of time had acquired the status of permanence. 11. From the above made discussion, it is seen that the Tribunal has taken a pragmatic view, therefore, we do not find any error of fact or law committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 04.04.2025. Accordingly, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (SHAHZAD AZEEM) JUDGE (SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE JAMMU 07.11.2025 Tarun/PS Tarun Kumar Gupta 2025.11.10 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document