HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No.1100/2025 CM No.2600/2025 Reserved on 06.05.2025 Pronounced on 14.05.2025 1. UT of J&K Acting Through Commissioner Secretary to the Govt., Agriculture Production Department, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. Director Fisheries, Fisheries Department, J&K Govt., Canal Road, Jammu. 3. Head Quarter Officer, Fisheries Department, Nowabad, Jammu. ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA. Versus Robin Koul S/o Sh. Jai Krishan Koul R/o H.No.28, General Lane, Saraswati Vihar, Anand Nagar, Bohri, Jammu ….Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. P.N Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.A Hamal, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE JUDGMENT Per: Shahzad Azeem, J 1. With the consensus of learned counsels appearing for the parties, the petition taken up on board for hearing. 2. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of order and judgment dated 15.12.2023 passed 2 WP(C) No.1100/2025 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu (“the Tribunal”) in TA No.61/6513/2021 titled “Robin Koul vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others”, whereby the Tribunal while allowing the TA, quashed the order dated 11.02.2016 and directed the petitioners herein to regularize the services of the respondent, Robin Koul on the analogy of similarly situated persons by giving all consequential benefits, within a period of eight weeks. 3. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioners, to assail the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, a brief narration of facts leading to the filing of instant petition would be advantageous. 4. The respondent, Robin Koul, initially engaged as Casual Labour, so as to discharge the duties of „Training Substitute Fisheries Guard‟ in the year 2002, and thereafter his services were continued, as such, taking into consideration his good work and conduct as reported by the concerned Officer from time to time. 5. In the year, 2015, a circular came to be issued by the Government, precisely on 17.03.2015 bearing endorsement No.A/Misc/2015/364, this Circular purportedly issued in the wake of large number of complaints stated to have been received by the Government regarding non payment of wages to the Casual/Seasonal workers etc., and also no defined criteria followed while engaging such workers, therefore, in order to streamline the process of engagement of these labourers, the Government had taken a policy decision whereby all the Administrative Secretaries and Heads of the Departments were advised to ensure that not a single Casual/Seasonal/Need based Worker is engaged under any circumstances, “henceforth” without the prior specific 3 WP(C) No.1100/2025 approval of the Chief Secretary. For facility of reference, the operative part of the circular dated 17.03.2015 reads thus: “Accordingly, all the Administrative Secretaries and the Managing Directors of all State Owned PSUs are advised to ensure that not a single Casual/Seasonal/Need Based Worker is engaged under any circumstances henceforth without the prior specific approval of the Chief Secretary, after the matter has been examined in the Finance Department to assess the need/justification for the same.” (emphasis supplied) 6. The immediate fallout of the circular dated 17.03.2015 was the stoppage of the salary of the respondent from August, 2015 and the reason for such action is discernable from the communication dated 20.01.2016, issued by the petitioner No.2, wherein the action for stoppage was justified in view of circular dated 17.03.2015. The petitioner No.2 in his communication dated 20.01.2016, stated that the salary of the respondent as, Training Substitute Fisheries Guard was drawn till the end of July, 2015 and thereafter salary not drawn by the office in view of the circular issued by the General Administrative Department vide No.A/Misc/2015/364 dated 17.03.2015. 7. Thereupon, respondent submitted a detailed representation for regularization and release of salary. However, petitioner No.2 vide order No.DF/CJ/2016/5577 dated 11.02.2016, rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization and release of salary and also his services were dispensed with retrospectively, w.e.f, 01.08.2015. Feeling indignant by the order the order dated 11.02.2016, the respondent, Robin Koul filed SWP No.735/2016 before 4 WP(C) No.1100/2025 Single Bench of this Court which on transfer to the Tribunal registered as TA No.61/6513/2021. 8. Accordingly, the matter on being examined, the Tribunal has passed impugned order and judgment dated 15.12.2023, whereby the order impugned dated 11.02.2016 was quashed and the petitioners were directed to regularize the services of the respondent on the analogy of similarly situated persons and give all consequential benefits to the respondent. The petitioners were further directed to complete this exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of order passed by the Tribunal. 9. The petitioners have thrown the challenge to impugned order and judgment dated 15.12.2023, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent was engaged as Training Substitute Fisheries Guard in view of the fact that the Fisheries Guard was sent on training for a period of six months. It is contended that this is the practice in the past also that such workers are being engaged for a period of six months i.e., period for which the Fisheries Guard were sent on training. 10. The main plank of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once a Training Substitute Fisheries Guard is engaged, his further continuance on the post of Training Substitute Fisheries Guard is dependent upon the further continuance of the training of such Fisheries Guard against whom the Training Substitute Fisheries Guard is engaged. However, in the case on hand, on scrutiny of the case of the respondent, it was found that no further continuation order has been issued by the competent authority in this regard beyond the expiry of terms of six months till July, 2015 and the salary w.e.f August, 2015 was stopped for want of further continuance on the 5 WP(C) No.1100/2025 post in pursuance of the circular issued by the General Administrative Department, dated 17.03.2015. It has been further contended that respondent cannot seek parity with the persons whose services were regularized, as their cases were different than that of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal failed to address the objection raised by the petitioners, therefore, prays for quashment of impugned order and judgment. 11. On the other hand, Mr. P.N Raina, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently argued that the respondent was initially engaged in the year 2002 and thereafter, continued from time to time as such, till the issuance of order dated 11.02.2016, whereby the services of the respondent were dispensed with retrospectively w.e.f, 01.08.2015, however, according to learned counsel the respondent is continuously discharging the duties till date in view of protection granted by the writ court in SWP No.735/2016 vide order dated 16.04.2016. 12. To buttress his arguments further, learned senior counsel has also submitted that the respondent is discriminated qua his counterparts whose services have been regularized, but the services of the respondent were dispensed with by misconstruing the circular dated 17.03.2015, whereby the Administrative Secretaries were advised not to engage henceforth any Casual/Seasonal/Need based Workers under any circumstances without the prior specific approval of the Chief Secretary. Therefore, same is prospective in nature and is not applicable to the respondent, hence, the Tribunal has on proper appreciation allowed the TA and quashed the impugned order. 6 WP(C) No.1100/2025 13. Admittedly, the salary of the respondent was stopped by the petitioners herein in pursuance of the circular dated 17.03.2015 as the same is conspicuous from the communication dated 20.01.2016 issued by the petitioner No.2. The immediate consequence of the circular dated 17.03.2015 is the issuance of order dated 11.02.2016 by the petitioner No.2 herein whereby the services of the respondent were dispensed with being not found eligible for regularization and release of salary. 14. On plain reading of the circular dated 17.03.2015 one would find in an unequivocal terms that same contains an advisory for all the Administrative Secretaries not to engage Casual/Seasonal/Need Based workers henceforth without the prior specific approval of the Chief Secretary, therefore, stretching the applicability of the circular dated 17.03.2015 anterior to the date of its issuance is in sharp contradiction to the very object and scope of the circular, wherein specific word i.e., “henceforth” is used. 15. From the record, it is borne out that the continuation of the respondent is backed and supported by his good work and conduct, most importantly by the time the order dated 11.02.2016 came to be issued the respondent had completed about 13 years and by now as Casual Labour/ Training Substitute Fisheries Guard had completed about 23 years, therefore, such work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic, given the long and uninterrupted services of the respondent for the period extending well beyond two decades, therefore, same cannot be brushed aside. 16. 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 7 WP(C) No.1100/2025 work over a long period. We are fortified in our view by 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, wherein held as follows: “10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.” 17. Again while taking note of the above judgment, Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in case “Shripal and another vs. Nagar Nigam” reported as 2025 SCC Online SC 221 authoritatively held thus: 8 WP(C) No.1100/2025 “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 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”. 18. The other contention of the petitioners that the engagement of the respondent was for a specific period is also refuted by the overwhelming evidence available on the file, which shows that the respondent had been performing continuous and uninterrupted duties for more than two decades, therefore, such work cannot be terms as temporary rather same with the passage of time had acquired the status of permanence, therefore, the services of the respondent cannot be dispensed with either by holding that the work of the respondent was for a specific period or by misconstruing the circular, which is obviously prospective in nature and thus the case of the respondent does not fall within the mischief of circular dated 17.03.2015. 19. 19. There is another very import aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of that the record would demonstrate that similarly situated persons who were engaged as Training Substitute Fisheries Guard and their services were regularized vide orders dated 08.01.1999, 17.02.2001, 23.03.2002, 9 WP(C) No.1100/2025 respectively, and nothing is brought on record by the petitioners to show that such Training Substitute Fisheries Guards are in any manner stand on different footing than the respondent. Therefore, on account of parity drawn by the Tribunal, we do not find any illegality in the order and judgment impugned, whereby petitioners were directed to regularize the services of the respondent on the analogy of similarly situated persons and to give all consequential benefits. 20. In view of the preceding analysis, we find no fault in the impugned order and judgment dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this petition is found without merit and as such, same is dismissed accordingly, along with connected application. Jammu: 14.05.2025 Surinder ( (Shahzad Azeem) Judge ) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No Surinder Kumar 2025.05.14 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document