Daily-Wager Rendering Continuous Service For Seven Years Cannot Be Classified As "Casual Labor" To Deny Regularization: J&K High Court

Clarifying the fine between distinction between the two Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,

“Casual Labour‟ refers to labour whose employment is intermittent, sporadic or extends over short period or continued from one work to another, whereas a “daily rated worker” or “daily wager” is a person, who is engaged for rendering continuous nature of service and is paid wages on daily basis”.

Petitioner Ghar Singh, a security guard at the University of Jammu, had been working on a daily wage basis since 1997. Despite completing seven years of continuous service in 2004, the eligibility criteria for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 (a government policy adopted by the University), Singh was not regularized. The University eventually regularized his position in 2010, but with immediate effect, denying him backdated benefits.

The University argued that Singh's petition was time-barred due to the delay in filing and that he had accepted the initial regularization order without protest. They further contended that Singh was a casual laborer and not covered under SRO 64 of 1994.

Justice Kumar, acknowledging the delay, observed the power imbalance between a large institution like the University and a daily wage worker. He noted that employees in such situations are often hesitant to challenge their terms of employment for fear of losing their jobs.

“Where the employer is in a dominating position and pitted against it is a petty employee like the petitioner, it is very difficult for such employee to muster courage and challenge the terms and conditions of the employment offered to him at the time of appointment”, the bench remarked.

Rejecting the University's classification of Singh as "casual labor" Justice Kumar distinguished between casual labor and daily wage workers and highlighted that the latter perform continuous service and are paid daily wages.

“..It is, thus, beyond cavil of any debate that a person who is engaged temporarily and is paid wages at the rates sanctioned by the Government from time to time and continued to perform his duties for a continuous period of more than seven years cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be termed as “casual labour‟ to deny him the benefit of regularization under SRO which, for the purpose of regularization of its daily wagers, the University adopted in the year 1995”, the court recorded.

Since Singh had worked continuously for over seven years, the court deemed him eligible for regularization under the adopted SRO policy.

Granting him retrospective regularization as a Security Guard from April 1, 2005, with all attendant benefits and arrears from that date until his actual regularization in 2010 the University was further directed to revise any pensionary benefits due to Singh accordingly within a stipulated period of two months.

Case Title: Ghar Singh Vs University Of Jammu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 56

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment