SWP No.897/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 20.11.2025 Pronounced on: 26.11.2025 Uploaded on: 26.11.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full Judgment SWP No.897/2016 TILAK RAJ AND OTHERS ...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S) Through: - Mr. Shakir Haqani, Advocate, with Mr. Asif Wani, Advocate. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Ms. Shagufta Maqbool, Advocate, vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI. Mr. Faizan, Advocate. Mr. M. M. Dar, Advocate, with Ms. Saiqa, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioners have sought a direction upon the respondents to regularize their services with effect from the date their other colleagues have been regularized. 2) The petitioners claim that they were engaged through contractors, M/S Harbhajan Associates, M/S Jatinder Construction Company, M/S B.A.G Enterprises, M/S Wonderland and M/S Shan Constructions for providing services to respondent Airport Authority of India from SWP No.897/2016 different dates. In this regard, the petitioners have placed on record the certificates issued by the contractors by whom they were engaged. It has been submitted that the respondents have formulated a policy/scheme to regularize the contract employees who have rendered a particular period of service. It has been submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid policy, services of 12 contract employees were regularized in terms of order dated 02.12.2013 in Group ‘D’ grade in relaxation of upper age limit and also in relaxation of minimum educational qualification. Another order dated 26.12.2013 came to be issued by the respondents whereby the details relating to age, qualification and character verification of beneficiaries were sought. 3) It has been submitted that the petitioner served a legal notice dated 04.11.2014, followed by reminders dated 06.01.2015 and 30.01.2016 upon the respondents seeking regularization of their services in the same manner as had been done in favour of beneficiaries of orders dated 02.12.2013 and 26.12.2013. It has been submitted by the petitioners that instead of considering their case, the respondents have resorted to a pick and choose policy in regularizing services of the similarly situated persons. 4) According to the petitioners they have rendered and have been rendering services sincerely and with dedication SWP No.897/2016 by performing the duties like upkeep of truss lights, escalators and other electric installations at Srinagar International Airport. It has been submitted that respondent No.3 has extended assurances from time to time to the petitioners for considering their request for regularization of their services but without any tangible results. 5) It has been submitted that some of the similarly situated persons approached this Court by way of a writ petition bearing SWP No.398/2014 and the same was allowed in terms of order dated 05.04.2016, whereby the respondents were directed to regularize their services. It has been submitted that the respondents have already accorded consideration to the case of the petitioners of the said writ petition but have excluded the petitioners herein from consideration. Thus, according to the petitioners, they have been invidiously discriminated against, hence the present writ petition. 6) Respondents No.1 and 2, in their reply to the writ petition, have submitted that 12 contract workers, who were regularized, had worked at Srinagar International Airport during the peak militancy period i.e. from the year 1990 to 1999 when the residents of the Jammu and Kashmir and other officials of the Airport Authority of India, who were posted at the Airport, had migrated to other places but the SWP No.897/2016 said 12 contract workers had continuously worked at Srinagar Airport, thereby contributing towards the smooth functioning of the Airport. It has been submitted that these 12 workers were regularized on the basis of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture made vide its 158th report as a onetime measure which was duly approved by Manpower Advisory Board of Airports Authority of India Board. It has been submitted that the Airports Authority of India Board in its 157th Board meeting held on 18.12.2013, approved the regularization of these 12 contract workers as a onetime measure including relaxation in qualification and age criteria keeping in view the recommendations of the Department relating to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture in its 158th report. It has been submitted that after the year 1999, the situation in the Valley became normal and there was no militancy in the Valley, as such, the contract workers could easily perform their job as there were no adverse conditions in the Valley, hence the petitioners are not entitled to claim similar benefit as was extended to other 12 workers. 7) It has been submitted that initially in the year 2012, a Committee constituted by the competent authority on the recommendation of Parliamentary Standing Committee SWP No.897/2016 considered 23 contract workers engaged through various contractors for scrutiny along with the petitioners herein, namely, petitioners No.1 to 10 and 12. It has been submitted that the scrutiny committee did not recommend these petitioners as petitioners No.3, 4 and 8 had left the job of Airports Authority of India contractor and they had been working with some other contractor not engaged by the Airports Authority of India. It has been submitted that petitioners No.1 to 10 and 12 were not recommended by the scrutiny committee as these contract workers were engaged by Airports Authority of India contractor after the year 2001. It has been further submitted that petitioner No.11 was not in the initial list of the scrutiny committee held in the year 2012. According to the respondents, 23 contract workers engaged through various contractors were considered for scrutiny along with ten petitioners i.e. petitioners No.1 to 10 and 12. 8) It has been submitted that on 05.04.2016, a direction came to be passed by this Court in WP(C) No.394/2014, to consider the cases of petitioners for regularization of their service in the same manner in which 12 contract workers were regularized in December, 2013. The committee, consisting of the same members which was formed in the year 2012 on the basis of same parameters in which 12 SWP No.897/2016 contract workers were regularized in the year 2013, considered the petitioners and verified the records. It has been submitted that it was found by the Committee that the petitioners except petitioner No.4 were not working at Srinagar Airport during the period of peak militancy which was considered by the Parliamentary Committee on Transport, Culture and Tourism. In short, the claim of the respondents is that the petitioners have not worked at Srinagar Airport during the peak militancy period from the year 1990 to 1999, as such, in terms of the policy evolved by the Parliamentary Committee on Transport, Culture and Tourism, the petitioners do not qualify the criteria. 9) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 10) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that even if some of the petitioners have been engaged on contract basis by the approved contractors of the Airport Authority of India after the year 2001, still then they are entitled to regularization for the reason that the respondents have regularized the services of similarly situated persons who were engaged after the year 2001. The learned counsel has referred to the documents on records, particularly the list of 23 workers who were shortlisted for regularization by the respondents, amongst whom, some workers have started SWP No.897/2016 working with the contractors engaged by the Airport Authority of India in the years 2004, 2005, and 2006. On this ground, it is being contended that the petitioners cannot be discriminated against. 11) After the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a direction came to be passed by this court on 08.05.2025, the same is reproduced as under: “After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length this court feels that the particulars with regard to the engagement of the partitioners through various contractors including the date(s) of their engagement and the date(s) up to which they have worked/are working with the contractor engaged by Airport Authority of India are required to be verified and ascertained. Accordingly respondent-Airport Authority of India shall, after ascertaining the aforesaid particulars about the petitioners, file an affidavit indicating the aforesaid details. The affidavit shall also indicate similar particulars about the persons who have been regularized pursuant the order of this Court/Supreme Court. Needful be done with four weeks.” 12) Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an affidavit came to be filed by the Airport Director, Srinagar International Airport, on July 24, 2025. Along with the said affidavit, the respondents annexed the details as were sought vide the order passed by this Court on May 8, 2023. The said affidavit was responded to by the petitioners. SWP No.897/2016 13) It is pertinent to mention here that after the regularization of services of 12 contract workers by the respondents pursuant to the recommendations of the parliamentary committee, some other contract workers filed a writ petition before this court bearing SWP No.1086 of 2017 titled Mohammed Ashraf Bhat and others v. State of J&K and others. The petitioners of the said writ petition had previously filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.398 of 2014, which came to be decided by this court on 5th April 2016 by directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services on the same analogy as was adopted in the case of similarly situated persons i.e. 12 contract employees who were initially regularized pursuant to the recommendations of the parliamentary committee. The said order was upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No.102 of 2016 in terms of judgment dated 1st of June 2016. When the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioners therein, they filed another writ petition bearing SWP No.1086 of 2017, which came to be decided by this Court on 19th of July 2018, whereby the consideration orders passed by the respondents were quashed and the respondents were directed to regularize services of the petitioners in SWP No.1086 of 2017. The said SWP No.897/2016 order was upheld by the Division Bench in LPASW No.128 of 2018, vide the judgment delivered on 25th of May 2022. 14) The respondents herein challenged the aforesaid judgment by way of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after ascertaining the current status of the writ petitioners in SWP No.1086 of 2017, observed that the said writ petitioners were included in the list of 23 identified workers who had been shortlisted for their regularization, along with 12 workers who had already been regularized pursuant to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 5th September 2024, directed regularization of 11 writ petitioners of SWP No.1086 of 2017, leaving out one of the writ petitioners who had joined a private airline. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the said benefit is being granted only to 23 workers identified by the airport director and that this order should not be treated as a precedent for any person beyond the shortlisted workers in Srinagar airport. 15) It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners herein had also filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court. However the same was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the SWP No.897/2016 Supreme Court, without giving any leave to the petitioners herein to pursue the present writ petition. 16) In view of the aforesaid developments and having regard to the fact that the names of the petitioners, admittedly, did not figure in the list of 23 workers who had been shortlisted by the Airport Director for regularization of their services, their case for regularization cannot be considered by the respondents and they cannot claim parity either with those 12 workers who were initially regularized pursuant to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee or with those workers who have been regularized pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, particularly when the Supreme Court has clearly directed that the benefit of regularization is being granted only to 23 shortlisted workers and that the same cannot be a precedent for any person beyond the shortlisted workers. Since none of the petitioners is included in the shortlisted workers, as such, they cannot be regularized by claiming parity with those who have been regularized pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court. 17) Apart from the above, a perusal of the affidavit dated 17.07.2025 filed by the Airport Director, Srinagar International Airport and the details of the petitioners SWP No.897/2016 contained in the chart accompanying the said affidavit would reveal that the petitioners otherwise also do not qualify the criteria. It would be appropriate to reproduce the extracts of the remarks made in the said chart against the petitioners herein: Name of the contract employee Remarks Tilak Raj, Aged 38 years S/o Chahaju Ram R/o New Gugran Pathankot at present Srinagar As per the experience certificate submitted by the Sh. Tilak Raj dated 06.06.2012, it is stated that he was employed with M/s Harbajan Associates for a period of 10 years (ie, from 2002 to 2012). However, as per the available records in this office, Sh Tilak Raj was engaged as a DG Operator/Pump Set Operator/Electrician with various contract agencies, and not in the capacity of a Supervisor, during the period from 2006 to 2012 (a spån of 6 years). This Indicates a discrepancy between the submitted experience certificate and the service records maintained by this office. Furthermore, as per the available records and the email dated 06.10.2016 from the AGM (E-E), Sh. Tilak Raj was engaged through different contract agencies from 2006 to 2017, with a break in service noted during the period from 2010 to 2012. Subsequently, Sh. Tilak Raj has continued to be engaged through different contract agencies under contracts awarded by AAl, and his engagement is recorded as continuing up to the year 2025 All such contractual engagements are subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the respective agreements, including compliance with applicable statutory provisions, such as the Minimum Wages Act and other relevant labor regulations. Davinder Kumar, Aged 37 years S/o Karam Chand R/o New Gugran Pathankot Presently at Srinagar The experience certificate submitted by Sh. Davinder Kumar, dated 10.11.2009, indicates an experience period from 15.01.1997 to 10.11.2014. This certificate is not genuine, as it shows an advanced experience end date (2014) issued in the year 2009, which is not feasible. According to available records, Sh. Davinder Kumar was employed as a DG Operator, Pump Operator, and Lift and Escalator Operator, and not as an Electrician as mentioned in the submitted experience certificate Furthermore, as per the records and the email dated 06.10.2016 from the AGM (E-E), Sh. Davinder Kumar worked in the roles of DG Operator, Pump Operator, and Lift and Escalator Operator from 2006 to 2017 through various contracting agencies, with a break in service between 2010 and 2012. Sh. Davinder Kumar continues SWP No.897/2016 to be engaged through different contracts awarded by AAl to these agencies, with service extending up to 2025. All engagements are governed by the respective contract agreements, and the agencies are required to comply with all terms and conditions, including adherence to applicable minimum labor wages regulations. Gulzar Ahmad Lone Aged 36 years S/o Ghulam Ahamd Lone R/o Gogo Humhama Budgam As per the experience certificate submitted by the Sh. Gulzar Ahmad Lone dated 21.06.2010,Sh. Gulzar Ahmad Lone was employed with M/s Harbajan Associates from June 2007 to 21.06.2010. However, according to available records, Sh Gulzar Ahmad Lone worked as a Helper during this period and not as a Technician / Electrician as mentioned in the experience certificate. From 2010 to 2012, Sh. Gulzar Ahmad Lone was employed as a Helper with M/s Jatender Construction Company. The experience certificate submitted by the individual indicates working as an Electrician / Technician, but the available records confirm employment only as a Helper. From 2014 to 2017, Sh. Gulzar Ahmad Lone worked as a Wireman / Technician, as per the email dated 06.10.2016 by the AGM (E-E). Furthermore, Sh. Gulzar Ahmad Lone continues to be engaged up to the year 2025 through different contracts awarded by AAl to various agencies. All such engagements are subject to the terms and conditions of the respective contract agreements, with agencies required to comply fully with applicable minimum labor wages regulations and other statutory provisions. Mohd Iqbal Bhat, aged 42 years S/o Inayat Hussain R/o Habba Kadal, Srinagar As per the experience certificate submitted by Sh. Mohd Igbal Bhat, dated 11.07.2013.However, according to available records, Sh. Mohd Iqbal Bhat has been working from 2013-14 and continues to be engaged up to 2025 through various contracts awarded by AAl to different agencies. These agencies are required to comply with all terms and conditions of the respective contract agreements, including adherence to applicable minimum labor wages regulations. Adil Mirza, aged 27 years s/o Mirza Maqsood Nabidpora Hawal Srinagar As per the available records and the email dated 06.10.2016 from the AGM (E-E), Sh. Adil Mirza was engaged as an Electrician / Wireman from 2007 to 2017 through various contracting agencies. The engagement has continued up to 2025 through different contracts awarded by AAl to these agencies. All contracting agencies are required to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated in their respective agreements, including adherence to applicable minimum labour wage regulations and other statutory obligations. Rahul Sharam aged 28 years S/o R P Sharma R/o Sarai Mohan, Azamgarh (UP) at present Srinagar As per the available records and the email dated 06.10.2016 from the AGM (E-E),Sh. Rahul Sharma was engaged as a Helper, not as a Technician / Operator, from 2009 to 2012 through M/s Jatinder Construction Company. Subsequently. Rahul Sharma was employed as a DG Operator from 2012 to 2017, and the engagement continues up to 2025 through various contracts awarded by AAl to different agencies. All SWP No.897/2016 agencies are required to comply with the terms and conditions of their respective contracts, including adherence to applicable minimum labour wage regulations and other statutory provisions. However, the experience certificates submitted by Sh. Rahul Sharma show overlapping and inconsistent employment periods. The certificate from M/s Jatinder Construction Company indicates a start date of 2010, but the end date is not mentioned. Another certificate from M/s Harbajan Associates claims employment from June 2002 to 30.04.2014, which overlaps with the above-mentioned period resulting in a discrepancy with the verified records maintained in this office. Mohd Iqbal Baba, aged 24 years S/o Ghulam Hassan Baba R/o Charairasharief, Budgam As per available records and the email dated 06.10.2016 from the AGM (E-E), Sh. Mohd Iqbal Baba was engaged as an Electrician from 2008 to 2017 through various contracting agencies. His engagement has continued up to 2025 through different contracts awarded by AAl to these agencies. All contracting agencies are required to comply with the terms and conditions of the respective agreements, including adherence to applicable minimum labour wages regulations and other statutory obligations Mohd Afzal Teli, aged 34 years S/o Ghulam Mohd Teli R/o Ichgam Budgam As per available records and the email dated 06.10.2016 from the AGM (E-E), Sh. Mohd Afzal Teli was engaged as a Help not as a Technician / Electrician as stated in the submitted experience certificate, during the period from 2006 2014. From 2014 to 2025, he has been working as an Electric through various contracts awarded by AAl to different contracting agencies. All such agencies are required to adhere to the terms and conditions of their respective agreement including full compliance with applicable minimum labour wage regulations and other statutory requirements. Mohd Yaqob Shakh, 3/0 Bashir Ahmad Sheikh, Aged 27 years, R/o Qazibagh, Budgam As per available records and the email dated 06.10.2016 from the AGM (E-EL Sh. Mohd Taqoob Sheikh was engaged Helper, and not as a Technician/Electrician as stated in the submitted experience certificate, during the period from 2010 to 2014.From 2014 to 2025, he has been working as an Electrician through various contracts awarded by AAl to different contracting agencies. All such agencies are required to comply with the terms and conditions of their respective agreements, including adherence to applicable minimum labour wages regulations and other statutory provisions. Abdul Rashid Darzi, aged 35 years, S/O Abdul AhadDarzi, R/O Ichgam (Budgam) As per available records and the small dated 06.10.2016 from AGM (E-E) Sh.Abdul Rashid Dar was engaged as a Helper not as an Operator as mentioned in the submitted experience certificate, during the period from 2008 to 2014 From 2014 to 2025, he has been working as an Operator through various contracts awarded by AAI to different contracting agencies. All agencies are required to comply with the terms and conditions of their respective contracts, including adherence to applicable minimum labour wages regulations and other statutory requirements SWP No.897/2016 Bachan lal, Aged 20 years, S/O Tej Ram, R/O Son Batal, Sambah As per available records and the email dated 06.10.2016 from the AGM (E-E), Sh. Bachan Lal was engaged as an Operator, and not as a Technician as mentioned in the submitted experience certificate, during the period from 2004 to 2012, with a break in service from 2009 to 2012. He has continued to be engaged through various contracts awarded by AAl to different contracting agencies, with service extending up to 2025. All such agencies are required to comply with the terms and conditions of the respective contract agreements, including adherence to applicable minimum labour wages regulations and other statutory provisions. Ravinder Singh, aged 33 years, S/O Fakeer Singh, R/O Siongpora, Pahalgam, Anantnag As per available records and the email dated 06.10.2016 from the AGM (E-E), Sh. Ravinder Singh was engaged as a Helper during the period 2008 to 2013, He has continued in service up to 2025 as a Lift/Escalator Operator through various contracts awarded by AAl to different contracting agencies. All contracting agencies are required to adhere to the terms and conditions of their respective agreements, including full compliance with applicable minimum labour wage regulations and other statutory provisions. Mudasir Ahmad Bhat Aged 24 S/o Nazir Ahmad Bhat Rio Panzan Budgam As per available records and the email dated 06.10.2016 from the AGM (E-E), Mudasir Ahmad Bhat was employed as a Helper during the periods 2007 to 2012 and 2014 to 2017, with a break in service from 2012 to 2014. He continues to be engaged as an Electrician up to 2025 through various contracts awarded by AAl to different agencies. All contracting agencies are required to comply with the terms and conditions of their respective agreements, including adherence to applicable minimum labour wages regulations and other statutory requirements. Hilal Ahmad Mir, aged 24 years, S/O Ghulam Mohi-ud- Din Mir, R/O Parnewa, Kremshora, Budgam As per available records and the email dated 06 10 2016 from the AGM E(-E), Sh. Hilal Ahmad Mir was employed as a Helper from 2006 to 2017. He continues to be engaged as an Operator up to 2025 through various contracts awarded by AA to different contracting agencies. All agencies are required to comply with the terms and conditions of their respective contracts, including adherence to applicable minimum labour wages regulations and other statutory obligations. Tariq Ahmad Bhat aged 34 S/o Mohd Shafi Bhat R/o Gogoo Humhama, Budgam per available records and the email dated 06.10.2016 the AGM (E-E) Sh. Tariq Ahmad Bhat was employed as a Helper during the period 2006 to 2013. He continues to be engaged as an Operator up to 2015 through various contracts awarded by AAl to different contracting Agencies. All agencies are required to comply with the terms and conditions of their respective contracts, including adherence to applicable minimum labour wages regulations and other statutory requirements. 18) From a reading of the aforesaid remarks with respect to each of the petitioners, it is clear that there is a grave SWP No.897/2016 suspicion about the experience certificates produced by the petitioners before the respondents, which have been scrutinized by the respondent Airport Director from the concerned contractors after obtaining reports from them. It would also be appropriate to note that the petitioners have produced on record two certificates, one from M/S Harbhajan Associates and another from M/S B.A.G Enterprises. In both these certificates the period of engagement of the petitioners is shown to be the same. While the certificate issued by M/S Harbhajan Associates is dated 10.11.2009, the certificate issued by M/S B. A. G Enterprises is dated 05.03.2016. It is not understandable as to how the petitioners continued to work with two different contractors during the same period. It is for this reason that the respondent Airport Director in his affidavit dated 17.07.2025 has raised serious questions about the veracity of the claims laid by the petitioners. 19) There is yet another aspect of the matter which is required to be noticed. In the petition, age of petitioner No.11 has been shown as 20 years as on the date of filing of the writ petition in the year 2016 and he has been shown to be working with the contractor since 2001, meaning thereby that he has started working with the contractor at the age of four years, which is improbable. Similarly, the age of SWP No.897/2016 petitioner No.5 has been shown as 27 years, age of petitioner No.6 has been shown as 28 years, age of petitioner No.7 has been shown as 24 years, age of petitioner No.9 has been shown as 27 years, age of petitioner No.13 has been shown as 24 years and age of petitioner No.14 has been shown as 24 years as in the year 2016. All these petitioners are shown to have been engaged from the dates when their age would have been less than 18 years. This is a glaring fact which strikes at the very genuineness of the claim of these petitioners. The respondents were, therefore, justified in not shortlisting these petitioners while undertaking the exercise of regularization of services of contract workers in accordance with the policy guidelines laid down by the Parliamentary Committee. 20) For the foregoing reason, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed, accordingly. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 21) The record be returned to learned counsel for respondent Airport Authority of India. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Srinagar 26.11.2025 “Bhat Altaf” Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No