Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ut Of J&K And Ors vs Aftar Hussain on 27 July, 2026
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2291-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 13.07.2026
Date of pronouncement:27.07.2026
Date of uploading: 27.07.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced FULL
WP(C) No. 2079/2026
CM No. 4504/2026
UT of J&K and Ors. ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA.
V/S
Aftar Hussain ....Respondent(s)
Through:- Ms. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate.
WP(C) No.2080/2026
CM No. 4505/2026
UT of J&K and Ors. ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through:-Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA.
V/S
Aftar Hussain ....Respondent(s)
Through:- Ms. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Sekhri-J
01. The controversy involved in both the petitions being intertwined, they
are being disposed of by virtue of this common judgment.
2
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2291-DB
02. Petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for the
quashment of orders, both dated 22.09.2025 passed by Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench [“the Tribunal” for short].
03. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of petitions, it
shall be expedient to have an overview of background facts of the
case.
FACTUAL MATRIX
04. As the factual matrix would unfurl, the respondent vide order dated
20.08.1998, issued by Additional Director, Sericulture Development
Department, Jammu came to be appointed as a casual hand driver,
subject to the availability of funds under the District Plan Budget and
his engagement in terms of various orders came to be extended by the
respondents from time to time.
05. Case set out by the respondent is that he continuously worked against
a clear vacancy as a driver, though on casual hand basis and was paid
salary of Rs. 3600/- per month on consolidated basis. The
Development Officer, Sericulture Development Department vide
letter dated 14.05.2010 sent a statement showing the details of
seasonal/casual workers engaged on need basis, where his name
figured at serial No. 1 and it was mentioned in the remarks column
that he was “working as Driver against available post on the eve of
superannuation of permanent driver on 07/1998”. He approached the
respondents for regularisation of his services and since it did not find
favour he preferred a writ petition in this Court; SWP No. 1351/2011,
for a mandate to the respondents to consider his case for
regularisation/ permanent absorption on the post of driver on which
WP(C) No. 2079/2026 and WP(C) No.2080/2026
3
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2291-DB
he was working since 1998 on consolidated basis and restraining the
respondents from dis-engaging or terminating his services and replace
him with a similar arrangement, which later came to be transferred to
the Tribunal.
06. The writ petition was opposed by the appellants stating inter alia that
respondent was engaged as a casual worker (driver) purely on need
basis for 50 days in the first instance w.e.f. 20.08.1998, which was
extended from time to time as per need of the department. He was
again engaged as casual worker (driver) for 39 days from 28.10.1998,
again on need basis, as per requirement of the department. They
denied the claim of the respondent that he was appointed on
consolidated basis. It was contended that his wages were paid as per
his engagement as a casual worker only, as due to a skilled worker on
the directions of Labour Commissioner. It was contented that
respondent was working as a casual driver for 18 days per month and
for rest of the month, he was not on the rolls of the department.
07. While the aforesaid writ petition; SWP No. 1351/2011 was pending
consideration, Principal Secretary to Government, Finance
Department issued a circular dated 17.03.2015 that a need was felt to
impose a complete ban on the engagement of casual/seasonal/need
based workers in all Government Departments including the State
Owned PSUs and that necessary orders for withdrawing existing
delegation of powers were being issued separately. All the
Administrative Secretaries and Managing Directors of all State
Owned PSUs were also advised to ensure that not a single
casual/seasonal/need based worker is engaged under any
WP(C) No. 2079/2026 and WP(C) No.2080/2026
4
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2291-DB
circumstances, henceforth available without the prior specific
approval of the Chief Secretary and after the matter was examined in
the Finance Department to assess the need/justification for the same.
08. Pursuant to the aforesaid circular, Director Sericulture Department
wrote a letter dated 07.05.2015 to the Additional Director Sericulture
Development Department, Jammu to implement the government
circular dated 17.03.2015 in letter and spirit and circulate the same
among sub-ordinate officers. Accordingly, the Additional Director
wrote a letter dated 01.06.2015 to the Project Officer, Sericulture
Development Department, Jammu and Deputy Directors of different
districts including district Rajouri, with a copy to respondent No. 7-
Mulberry Incharge, Budhal vide endorsement dated 10.06.2015 to
dis-engage the casual/seasonal/need based workers in the respective
Mulberry Circle and implement the aforesaid circulars and
communications in letter and spirit.
09. Aggrieved of the aforesaid Government circular dated 17.03.2015 and
subsequent communications issued pursuant thereto, respondent
approached this Court by way of another writ petition; SWP No.
1923/2015, for their quashment.
10. It was contended by the respondent that he being fully eligible, in
terms of Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special
Provisions) Act, 2010 [hereinafter referred to as Act of 2010],
approached the appellants but his case for regularisation/permanent
absorption on the post of driver, on which he was working since 1998
was not considered.
WP(C) No. 2079/2026 and WP(C) No.2080/2026
5
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2291-DB
11. This writ petition was also resisted by the appellants by and large on
the same grounds those were urged in the earlier writ petition that
respondent was engaged purely as a casual worker (driver) on need
basis for 50 days in the first instance w.e.f. 20.08.1998, which came
to be extended from time to time as per need of the department. He
was again engaged as a casual worker (driver) for 39 days w.e.f.
28.10.1998 on need basis as per the requirement of the department.
They again denied the claim of the respondent regarding appointment
on consolidated basis and contended that his wages were paid to him
as per his engagement as a casual worker only as due to a skilled
worker on the directions of the Labour Commissioner. It was also
contended that respondent was working as a casual driver for 18 days
in a month and for rest of the period, he was not on the rolls of the
department. The appellants prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
12. After the promulgation of J&K Reorganization Act, 2019 both the
writ petitions came to be transferred to the Tribunal and were
respectively re-numbered as TA No. 230/2024 and TA No. 196/2024.
13. Learned Tribunal on hearing rival contentions has come to conclude
and hold that since respondent meets the requisite criteria, in terms of
Section 5 of the Act of 2010 that he has been appointed against a
clear vacancy, continued in that position, possessed the necessary
qualifications and there is no pending disciplinary or criminal
proceedings against him, his long service and nature of his work
substantiates his claim for regularisation. As such, while allowing TA
No. 196/2024 [SWP No. 1923/2015] the Tribunal directed the
appellants to regularise services of the respondent in the Sericulture
WP(C) No. 2079/2026 and WP(C) No.2080/2026
6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2291-DB
Department immediately in accordance with the provisions of Act of
2010 with all benefits and emoluments associated with the regular
employment including arrears of salary, due to delay in his
regularisation.
14. Learned Tribunal also allowed TA No. 230/2024 [SWP No.
1351/2011] and directed the appellants to consider the case of the
respondent for regularisation/permanent absorption on the post of
driver on which he was working since 1998 on consolidated basis.
GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
15. Appellants are aggrieved of the impugned judgments by and large on
the same grounds on which they opposed the claim of the respondent
before the Tribunal that his engagement was purely as a casual
labourer or need basis, which came to be extended from time to time
as per need of the department and that he worked for 18 days per
month on need basis only and not for the whole of the month.
16. It is contention of the appellants that since as per Rule 5 of J&K
Sericulture Subordinate Service Rules, the post of driver is to be filled
by direct recruitment, therefore no casual labour can be regularised as
a driver and SRO 69 was not attracted. They are aggrieved of the
impugned judgments inter alia on the following grounds:
(A)That the respondent herein, since was not fulfilling the eligibility
criteria as prescribed for regularization as prescribed under SRO
64 OF 1994 (J&K Civil Services Special Provisions Act of 2010)
hence the respondent herein could not have been considered for
regularization under J&K Civil Services Special Provisions Act of
2010 as the respondent herein was admittedly working as casual
labour. That as per SRO 69 (J&K Sericulture Subordinate ServiceWP(C) No. 2079/2026 and WP(C) No.2080/2026
7
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2291-DBRules), Rule 5 provided that the post of Driver is to be filled by
direct recruitment and therefore, the law applicable to the filed
makes it clear that no casual labour can be regularised as Driver
and any such regularization shall be in sheer violation of the law
and the said SRO as such could not have been directed. Therefore
the impugned judgement is illegal and bad in the eyes of law and
needs to be set aside. The copy of the said SRO 69 is enclosed
herewith as Annexure XI.
(B) That the respondent herein had not described and had not placed
any material on record before the Ld. CAT Bench Jammu as to
under which law/rule the respondent is entitled to regularization
as driver when admittedly being a casual labour/worker even if
the respondent herein against the rule was permitted to drive the
departmental vehicle being a casual labour/worker. The directions
of the Ld. CAT Bench Jammu are devoid of merit and law and de
horns rule therefore the impugned judgement is illegal and bad in
the eyes of law and needs to be set aside.
(C) That the respondent herein on wrong premises filed the writ
petition and claimed the regularization on one hand under J&K
Civil Services Special Provisions Act of 2010, even though
knowing well that the said act of 2010 is applicable to persons
appointed on adhoc or contractual basis including those
appointed on consolidated pay provided that such appointment
has been made against a clear vacancy while as here in the
present case, the respondent herein was appointed as a casual
labour therefore the said provision was not applicable to the
respondent herein and the writ petition/TA ought to have been
dismissed but the same has been erroneously allowed as such the
impugned judgement is illegal and bad in the eyes of law and
needs to be set aside.
(D) That the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case
title Abdul Majid Magrey Vs State and ors LPASW NO. 29/2019
(Srinagar Wing), The Hon’ble Court has held that the employee
can seek regularization from the date the empowerment committee
WP(C) No. 2079/2026 and WP(C) No.2080/2026
8
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2291-DB
had recommended and not prior to it. That here in the present
case, since the Act of 2010 was not applicable to the case of the
respondent as such the empowerment committee had not
recommended the case of the respondent for registration at any
stage. The respondent herein cannot seek regularization as a
matter of right in absence of any rule as such the impugned
judgement passed by Ld. CAT Bench Jammu is against the settled
principles of law and needs to be set aside.
(E) That the respondent herein had filed another writ petition bearing
SWP NO: 1923/2015 before this Hon’ble Court and sought the
direction for quashing the communication no.
ADSJ/Req.Seed/1068-80 dated 01/06/2015 with respect to
disengagement of causal/seasonal/need based workers and other
ailed reliefs which was also transferred to Ld. CAT Bench Jammu
and bears TA No.196 of 2024 which too has been allowed and the
petitioners herein have been directed to regularize the services of
the respondent herein in accordance with the provisions of J&K
Civil Services Special Provisions Act of 2010 and the whole
exercise is directed to be completed within 3 months. The
petitioners have also challenged the said judgement as passed in
the said TA dated 22/09/2025. That two writs were filed seeking
similar reliefs.
(F) That the Ld. CAT Bench Jammu failed to apply the settled law
and passed the impugned judgement which is factually and legally
incorrect as such needs to be set aside.
(G) That the Petitioners reserve its right to urge additional or
alternative grounds of challenge to the impugned order at the time
of final hearing of the petition.
(H) That there is no other equally efficacious remedy available to
the petitioners than to approach this Hon’ble Court invoking Writ
Jurisdiction and the petitioners have not filed a similar petition
before this Hon’ble Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India on the same facts.
WP(C) No. 2079/2026 and WP(C) No.2080/2026
9
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2291-DB
That in view of the above facts and circumstances, the present
petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 22/09/2025
passed by Hon’ble CAT Bench Jammu in case titled Aftar Hussain
Vs UT/State of J&K and ors whereby the Hon’ble Tribunal has
allowed the TA No. 230/2024, may kindly be set aside.
17. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, we have gone through
the impugned judgments and the material on record.
APPELLANT’S CASE
18. It is contention of the appellants that since respondent was not
fulfilling the eligibility criteria as prescribed for regularization under
SRO 64 and Act of 2010, he could not be considered for
regularization because he was admittedly working as a casual labour.
According to them, Act of 2010 is applicable to persons appointed on
adhoc or contractual basis including those appointed on consolidated
pay provided, such appointment is made against a clear vacancy and
since respondent was appointed as a casual labour, Act of 2010 was
not attracted to his case and TAs ought to have been dismissed by the
Tribunal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
19. The question which begs consideration of this Court is “whether an
employee engaged on a casual need basis or daily wage basis can be
regularized on a post meant for direct recruitment and if the answer is
in affirmation; the designation and the grade he is entitled to.
FINDINGS AND REAASONG
20. It goes without saying that under the service jurisprudence
regularisation cannot be claimed dehors the statutory recruitment
WP(C) No. 2079/2026 and WP(C) No.2080/2026
10
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2291-DB
rules and there is no automatic right vested in a person engaged on
need basis to be regularized against a post, specifically meant for
direct recruitment. Ordinarily, the posts designated to be filled
entirely by direct recruitment must go through a transparent and open
selection process to ensure constitutional mandate of equality
enshrined in Articles 14 and 16. However, government is also under a
constitutional mandate to formulate schemes for regularisation to
address the plight of its long serving, need based or daily rated
workers.
21. Act of 2010 came to be enacted by the Government of J&K for the
same purpose to provide a framework for the regularization of its
adhoc, contractual and consolidated appointees. As per Section 5 of
the Act, regularization of such employees is contingent on conditions
like, the appointee must have been appointed against a clear vacancy,
must have continued in that position, must possess the necessary
qualifications and must not have any pending disciplinary or criminal
proceedings against him.
22. A division Bench of this Court in a bunch of LPAs with lead case
Ashok Kumar vs State of J&K and Ors. reported as 2003 (4) JKJ
(HC) 93 dealing with the position of casual labours has observed that
where an employee has continued to work for sufficiently long
period, then, it would not be apt to call him having been appointed on
casual basis.
Relevant excerpt of the judgment for the facility of reference,
captured in para 40 is extracted below:
“CASUAL EMPLOYEES
WP(C) No. 2079/2026 and WP(C) No.2080/2026
11
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2291-DBThe cases of casual employees be also examined. In this
regard, it would be apt to note the dictionary meaning of
the word ‘casual’. In Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth
Edition, the meaning of word ‘casual’ has been defined as
“occurring without regularity”, “occasional”,
“impermanent” and “as employment for irregular
periods”. A perusal of above meaning would indicate that
where an employee has continued to work for sufficiently
long period, then, it would not be apt to call him having
been appointed on casual basis. As a matter of fact, this
aspect of the matter was considered in Piara Singh’s case
(supra). The relevant observations made in para 51 of the
judgment stand already noticed above. For facility of
reference, the relevant observations made in this
paragraph are being quoted again:-
“If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell
say two or three years- a presumption may arise that there
is a regular need for his services. In such a situation, it
becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine
the feasibility of his regularisation, while doing so, the
authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled
with an empathy for the person.”
23. If facts and circumstances obtaining the present case are considered
in the light of aforesaid judgment, we have no doubt in our mind that
though respondent was engaged under the style of casual labour on
need basis for driving the department vehicle, but in effect his
services were continuously utilized by the appellants for 28 years as
daily rated worker by extending his engagement from time to time in
terms of different orders and his salary was also paid on consolidated
basis, which is evident from the master sheets and attendance-cum-
salary sheets annexed with the petitions. It is also evident from a letter
dated 14.05.2010, forwarded by Development Officer, Sericulture
Development Department that respondent has been “working as
Driver against available post on the eve of superannuation of
permanent driver on 07/1998”, and he continued in that position and
there is nothing in the record to suggest that there was any
disciplinary or criminal proceeding pending against him. As such, we
concur with the observation of learned Tribunal that respondent meets
WP(C) No. 2079/2026 and WP(C) No.2080/2026
12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2291-DB
the criteria laid down in Section 5 of the Act of 2010. The length of
service rendered by the respondent i.e., 28 years substantiates his
claim for regularization and the petitioner UT and its instrumentalities
as a model and welfare state are under a bounden duty to protect the
rights of its employees. In the circumstances, insofar as TA No.
230/2024 [SWP No. 1351/2011] is concerned, we do not find any
illegality or impropriety in the observation of the Tribunal that long
service of the respondent and nature of his work substantiates his
claim for regularisation.
24. Now the question for consideration is the designation and grade
respondent is entitled to.
25. The Jammu and Kashmir, Sericulture (Subordinate) Service
Recruitment Rules, 1979 came to be amended by way of SRO-69 and
Schedule “A” annexed to the said Rules was substituted by the
following schedule:
MINISTERIAL
Class Category Designation Grade Minimum Method Of
Qualification or Recruitment
direct
Recruitment
1 2 3 4 5 6
A Section Officer 825-1240 100% by promotion
from Class II(A)
Category having not
less than 5 years
services in that
category
B Statistical Officer 825-1240 By deputation from
the Directorate of
Evolution and
statistics
C P. A. Dum Steno 825-1240 100% by test from Jr.
scale Steno-graphers,
steno-typist (600-925)
having not less than 5
years’ service in the
category and on the
basis of test in short
hand and type writing
of 60 words and 40
words per minute
speed respectively or
by deputation fromWP(C) No. 2079/2026 and WP(C) No.2080/2026
13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2291-DBCivil Sectt.
A Supdtt/Head Astt. 600-925 By promotion from
Class III Category
having 5 years service
in ministerial cadre
and having passed
Sectt. Asstt.
Examination.
B. Jr. Acctts do By deputation from
Finance Deptt.
Stenographers/Steno PUC with 60 words Direct recruitment or
cum typists speed in hand and deputation from Civil
words in type Sectt.
writing per minute
By promotion from class VI from among
Senior Assistant /Typist person having 3 year service in the class
Jr. Statistical Asstt. 600-925 By deputation from evolution and
Statistical
Accounts Clerk 475-850 By deputation from Finance Department
Driver do Middle pass with 02 By direct recruitment.
years hill driving licence
Mul.-Clerk/Store Clerk/Jr. Asstt. 410-500 Matric having 50 words 75% by direct recruitment and 25% from
speed in type writing per amongst Chowkidar and other inferior
minute Govt. Employees working in the Deptt
provided they are Matriculates and have
25 Words speed in type writing per
minute.
Orderlies 345-460 Middle By direct recruitment
(Emphasis Supplied)
CONCLUSION
26. Respondent has served as a casual worker on need basis since 1998
i.e., for about 28 years now for driving the government vehicle,
because he was holding a valid driving licence. True it is that he
cannot be dis-engaged at this length of service and age on the premise
that his engagement was purely on need base as a casual worker,
however, under the standard service rules and judicial precedents an
employee engaged on a casual need base or daily wage basis cannot
be regularised directly to a higher post. On regularisation, he is
typically to be absorbed into the lowest entry level grade. As per
established regularisation frameworks a worker engaged on daily
need basis is to be placed in the lowest grade applicable to the
WP(C) No. 2079/2026 and WP(C) No.2080/2026
14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2291-DBgovernment service because allowing a lower-tier employee to claim
a higher post merely because he was assigned higher duties would
bypass transparent and merit based recruitment processes.
27. A perusal of Schedule “A” to SRO 69 reveals that lowest entry level
grade of the ministerial staff is orderlies in the pay grade of 345-460.
Learned Tribunal, as such, has fallen in grave error of law in directing
the appellants to regularise services of the respondent as a driver in a
higher pay grade of 475-850, which is not countenance in law.
ORDER
28. For what has been observed and discussed above, petitions are
allowed in part with a direction to the appellants to immediately
regularise the service of the respondent as orderly in the grade of 345-
460 from the date he completed 07 years of his service, with all
benefits and emoluments associated therewith. Respondent shall also
be entitled to the arrears from the date of his regularisation till date.
The whole exercise shall be completed within a period of 03 months
from the date a copy of this judgment is made available.
29. Both the petitions are disposed of.
(Rajesh Sekhri) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge
Jammu
27.07.2026
Sushant
Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes
WP(C) No. 2079/2026 and WP(C) No.2080/2026
