HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AIID LADAIGI AT JAMMU WP(CI No. 88L12O26 Reserued on: 12.05.2026 Pronounced on: 3o .05.2026 Uploaded on: 30 .05.2026 Whetlwr t?te operatiue part or full iudgment is pronounred: 1. UT of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner ... Petitioner/Appellant(s) Cum-Secretary, Forest Department, Civil Sectt. UT of J&K Jammu-l80o0l 2. Principal Chief Consenrator of Forest, J&K Government, Jammu 18OOO1 3. Chief Consenrator of Forests, Dogra Hall, Jammu. 4. Consenrator of Forests, Chenab Circle, Doda 5. Divisional Forest OfIlcer, Forest Division, Doda. Through:- Mr. Vishal Bharti, DY. A.G Vs. Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Malik S/o Sh. Nasrullah Malik R/o Bharat Now Tehsil Bharat (Otd Doda) District Doda. . ...Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. R.K.S Thakur, Advocate' CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SIIARMA, JT DGE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SI{AIIZILD AZE,E,]0itr., JITDGE JUDGMENT SHATIZAD AZEE,M-J With the consensus of learned counsels for the 1 parties, the petition is taken on board for hearing. wP(cl No. 881/2o26 2. The petitioners have thrown challenge to the order dated 31 December 2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu ('the Tribunal") in TA No. 7757 /2O21 titled Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Malik & Anr. Vs. UT of J&K & Ors, whereby the petitioners herein (respondents before the Tribunal) were directed to regularize the services of the respondent herein (applicant before the Tribunal) against the post of Mali w.e.f. O 1 January 2OO2 ',\rith alt consequential benefits, including promotion, etc. 3. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the respondent was allowed to perform his duties as Mali w.e.f 25 February 1997 in pursua.nce of the direction issued by this Court in SWP No. 607 /L995, therefore, he did not complete his 07 years of sernice as such, till 01 January 2OO2 i.e. the date from which he was ordered to be regularized. 4. Further contention of the petitioners is that SRO 64 of L994 dealing 'Mith the regularization of services already stood repealed by S.O. 514 dated 06 October 2023. Therefore, the respondent has no legal right to the regularization of his serices. The petitioners have also relied upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court passed in urP(cl No. 881/2o.26 c Secretary State of Karnataka and Ors. 7s. Uma Deai and Ors; (2006) 4 SCC 7 so as to buttress the point that regularization of services must comply strictly with the constitutional mandate ensuring equality, merit and transparency. While reverting to the order under challerge, it is seen that the Tribunal has taken note of the nature of engagement of the respondent and on satisfying itself that the respondent was appointed as Mali against clear vacancy arrd joined in the year 1994, it has directed the petitioners to regularize his services w.e.f O1 January 2OO2 i.e. the date when he has completed 07 years of his services and further to grant all consequential benefits. 6. On the other hand, Mr. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R.K.S Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn our attention to the orders passed by the petitioners from time to time so as to show that the respondent is continuously performing his duties for about 30 years and went unto submit that after extracting work from the respondent for such a long time, now cannot be allowed to take U-turn by stating that serwices of the respondent were of temporar5r or ad-hoc in nature. Learned counsel has further made submissions in line with the reasoning prevailed with the Tribunal while urP(cl No. 881/2o26 I passing the impugned order, therefore, s€une shall be taken note of hereinafter at appropriate stage. 7. Heard and considered. 8 Though the Tribunal has taken note of the nature of appointment of the respondent and also as to how the respondent was made to knock at the door of the Court time and again, including the numerous intra-departmental communications exchanged between the authorities regarding regularization of serwices of the respondent, however, for the sake of brevity, we do not deem it necessary to go into that gamut of the factual narrations, rather will be referring to two communications that are relevant and in our opinion are sufficient to settle the present controversy. 9. Consenrator of Forest, Chenab Circle, Jammu, addressed a communication bearing No. 1257 /Estt dated 18 October L994 to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Jammu to the effect that the respondent has worked in Kuntwara Range for fencing, sowing and planting voluntarily without taking any wages during last 2-3 years. As a immediate fallout of this communication, the respondent came to be engaged temporarily against available post of Mali vide Order No. 37 of L994 dated O7 December 1994 and accordingly, joined as such on 29 December L994. Therefore, this wP(cl No. 881/2026 b communication is revelation of the fact that though voluntarily but respondent had been performing the duties of fencing, sowing and planting since L99L-92. 10. The other communication which assu.mes relevance is dated 18 March 2OLl issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Doda, Forest Division Doda, addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Jammu, wherein after grving entire factual details of the respondent's senzice track record, it was concluded that the respondent had been working as Mali purely on ad-hoc basis w.e.f 29 December 1994. It is further specifically obsenzed that he has been battling for last 15 years and over the period of time, he has become ineligible and over aged for appointment in any other government serrrice. Finally, the competent officer has recommended the case of tJre respondent for regularization retrospectively w.e.f 29 December 2024 i.e. the date of joining in pursuance of his engagement order No. 37 of L994 dated 07 December 1994 11. These two above referred official communications would unerringly show that the respondent is all along clamoring for regularization of his services, and the petitioners on one pretext or other pretext after extracting work continuously for over 30 years now carne up with a wP(cl No. 881/2o.26 I petition purely on hyper-technical ground that he is not entitled to the regularizattort of his services. 12. The State being the welfare State is expected to lead by example, and cannot resort to the policy of hire and fire, as s€une would amount to exploitative engagement, particularly when it is continuous and uninterrupted work over a long period. In " Shrlpal and another us. Nagar Ntgam, Ghaziabadn repor-ted ols 2025 SCC Online SC 227 Hon'ble Suprem.e Court held thus: "74. TIE Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadeui (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in th.e absence of statutory ntles prouiding such absorption. Howeuer, as frequentlg reiterated, [Jma Deui itself di,stinguishes betuteen appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regalarization if tley meet certain conditions. More importantlg, Uma Deui cannot serue as a shield to justifu exploitatiue engagements persisting for gears uithout tlw EmploAer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Giuen th.e record which shou.rs no tnte contractor based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent hortianltural staff the alleged assefied ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justtfA indefinite daily-wage stahts or continued unfair practice s". 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively further held in the aforesaid judgment that Indian labour law wP(cl No. 881/2ot26 strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. 14. Again in Jaggo Vs. Union of India; AIR 2025 SC 296, strongly deprecated the practice of brushing aside long and uninterrupted senrice, for periods extending well beyond ten years, merely by labeling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. Honble Supreme Court rejected the contention of the respondent that there were no regular post by holding that the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. It was further held that the appellants' performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regulaization. In this regard, what has been held in para No. 22 assumes importance and same reads thus:- 22. The penta,slue mlszse of temporary emplogment contracts, as exempllfied in thls case, reflects a broader sgstemlc lssue that adaerselg aflects uorkers' rlghts and tob securltg. In the prluate sector, the rlse of the gilg economg has led to an lncrea.se ln precarlous employment anangements, ofien characterlzed bg lack of benefits, Job sectrlty' and fatr treatment Such practlces haue been crttlclzed for exploltlng utorkers and und,ertnlnlng labour sto;ndo;rds. @aentment lnstltrttlons, entttsted wlth upholdtng the prlnclples of lalrness and Justlce, bear an ettett greater responslbllttg to aaoid such exploltatlae emplogment practlces. wP(cl No. 881/2ot26 a When publlc sector entltles engdge ln mlsuse of temporary contracts, tt not onlg mlrrors the detrlmental trends obsertted ln the glg economg but atso sets a concernlng precedent that can erode pttbllc ttttst ln goaerttmental operatlons. 15. It is worth noting that Honble Supreme Court in Dharam Stngh & Ors. Vs. Stab of U.P & Atrr.l AIR 2025 SC 3897 unequivocally while referring to Uma Devi (supra) held that same draws distinction between illegal appointment and irregular engagements and does not endorse perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Honble Supreme Court, while noting the long and perennial nature of duties of appellants, ordered for regularization of their services. 16. In a recent judgment passed by Honble Supreme Court in Bhola No;th Vs. The State of Jharkho;nd & Ors; 2026 SCC OnJ,,;ine SC 729 after taking note of the law laid down in Jaggo (supra), Shripal (supra), Dharam Singh (supra) and often quoted Uma Devi (supra) held that the respondent-state was not justified in continuing the appellants for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization. Honb1e Supreme Court has further observed that the State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application wP(cl No. 881/2ot26 I of Uma Devi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-senring employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional governance and finally, directed the State to forthwith regularize the services of the appellants. 17. Be that as it ffi€ry, after extracting work from the respondent continuously for over 3O years, it does not lie in the mouth of the State to assert that status of the respondent was that of Ern ad-hoc employee 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. 18. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner regarding repeal of SRO 64 of L994 is concerned, same is not only self defeating but also is not sustainable in view of the settled legal position that a right accrued under the statute cannot be taken away retrospectively. The repeal of the Act or Rule cannot be applied to defeat a right that had crystallized under repealed Act, more so, when it amounts to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. wP(cl No. 881/20126 19. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the engagement of the respondent was on ad-hoc basis is also refuted by the admitted fact that the respondent had been performing continuous and uninterrupted duties for more than three decades, therefore, such work cannot be termed as tempora-ry, rather szune with the passage of time had acquired the status of pennanence. 2o. 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 31 December 2024 Accordingly, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. ( )"*tt- Jammu: 3a .05.2026 Tarun/PS Azeem) Judge Whetler approued for reporting : Wl'rcttrcr tle order is speaking (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Yes/ No Yes/ No wP(cl No. 881/2026 t Surinder Kumar 2026.05.30 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document