HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 597/2026 UT of J & K and Others .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG v/s Sat Paul .....Respondent(s) Through :- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 10.03.2026 1. Impugned in this petition, filed by the UT of J & K and four others is an order and judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in TA No. 72/2025 titled “Sat Paul vs. UT of J&K and Others”, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA of the respondent and quashed the rejection order dated 10.04.2019 and directed the petitioners herein to accord consideration to the regularization of the respondent in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary w.e.f. the date the respondent has qualified for the said regularization. The Tribunal has further provided that the respondent would be entitled to the pensionary benefits and arrears w.e.f. the date he has retired from service. 2. The issue raised in this petition has been set at rest by this Court in numerous judgments, latest in the line are the judgment dated 03.03.2026 passed in WP (C) No. 412/2026 titled “UT of J&K and Others vs. Pawan Kumar” and judgment dated 23.02.2026 passed in Sr. No. 58 2 WP (C) No. 410/2026 titled “UT of J&K and Others vs. Sajjad Ahmed Wani.” 3. A similar plea taken by the petitioners to deny the benefit of regularization to an employee who had worked with the Government as a daily wager on the ground that he was a „casual labour‟ and, therefore, did not qualify for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 has been rejected by this Court in above judgments. 4. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that a person who performs whole time duties and receives wages fixed by the Government under the Minimum Wages Act cannot be termed as „casual labour‟, that too, when he has been continuously working for decades. The nomenclature of „casual labour‟ given to the respondent in the instant case is only a misnomer, whereas the fact remains that the respondent has been working with the petitioners continuously w.e.f. July 1993 and has been receiving the wages as per the minimum rates fixed by the Government under the Minimum Wages Act. The respondent is, therefore, a „daily rated worker‟ and cannot be denied the benefit of regularization by misbranding him as a „casual labour‟. 5. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 10.03.2026 Manik