Two Decades Of Continuous Services Doesn't Give Right Of Regularization Unless Formal Recruitment Process Is Followed: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that serving in a department for more than 20 years without following the due process of recruitment does not give the right to said employee to seek the regularization of services.

The court said that the engagement of the petitioner, who was engaged as a sweeper on a daily wage basis and its continuation thereafter, was without any due process of recruitment undertaken by the respondents. The court noted that in the absence of any policy for regularization, the plea seeking regularization of his services could not be accepted.

A bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta, however, held that the petitioner, who was engaged for the work, could not be paid less than those employed on a regular basis for performing the same duties and responsibilities in line with the SC's judgment in Umadevi's case.

The court said that temporary employees performing the same duties as regular employees are entitled to the basic pay scale of the post. The court further directed that this benefit shall be available to the petitioner from the date on which he filed his application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench.

The court relied on State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors. (2017) wherein the Supreme Court held that, "For equal pay, the concerned employees with whom equation is sought, should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal, should be of the same quality and sensitivity."

The court further directed the respondents to pay the arrears thereof to the petitioner within two months from the date a copy of this judgment is served upon them.

BACKGROUND

The petitioner was appointed as a Safai Karamchari in the Department of Posts. He served continuously in the department without being granted the benefits of regularization or a minimum pay scale for two decades. He initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench, seeking equal pay with regular Safai Karamcharis and the regularization of his service.

His request was rejected by an order, which he challenged before the Srinagar Bench of CAT. The CAT dismissed his application, ruling that he was a daily wager and not entitled to regularization or equal pay. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the CAT order.

The court held that the petitioner's initial appointment was not made through a formal recruitment process, making him ineligible for regularization under the Constitution Bench ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1.

The court also held that since the petitioner performed the same duties as regularly appointed Safai Karamcharis for over 20 years, he was entitled to receive equal pay for equal work.

APPEARANCE

Gulzar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate FOR Petitioners.

Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Advocate FOR Respondents.

Case-title: Farooq Ahmad Janda vs Union Of India, 2025

Citation: Livelaw JKL) 77

Click Here To Read/Download Order