Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Territory Of J&K And Others vs Mohd. Akbar Batt And Others on 16 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Sr. No. 16
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No. WP(C) No.313/2026
Caveat No.758/2026
Date of Pronouncement:-16.02.2026
Uploaded on:- 18.02.2026
Union Territory of J&K and others .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Assisting Counsel
v/s
Mohd. Akbar Batt and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Sheikh Nazeeb, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
Per:-Sanjeev Kumar J
01. Impugned in this petition, filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir and four others under Article 226 of Constitution of India is an order
and judgment dated 07.11.2024 [“the impugned judgment] passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in
T.A. No.61/5629/2021 titled ‘Mohd. Akram Batt and Ors. Vs. State of J&K
and Ors.‘ whereby the Tribunal has allowed the petition of the respondents and
directed the petitioners herein to accord consideration to the regularization of the
respondents having rendered more than seven years continuous service as Daily
Wagers, in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 within a period of eight weeks. The
respondents have also been held entitled to all consequential benefits including
arrears of salary with effect from the date they became eligible for such
WP(C) No.313/2026 1 of 4
regularization. With regard to the respondents who had retired, a direction has
been issued to release in their favour the pensionary benefits.
02. The impugned judgment is challenged by the petitioners primarily on the
ground that the Tribunal has not appreciated that the respondents were engaged
as part time Community Participation (CP) Workers on consolidated basis and,
therefore, were not entitled to regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.
03. Having considered the rival contentions, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that there was enough documentary evidence on record to show that
all the respondents were appointed as Daily Wagers prior to the issuance of SRO
64 of 1994 and, therefore, became entitled to regularization on completion of
seven years continuous service. The Tribunal has also taken not of the fact that
the similarly circumstanced daily wagers, who were working with the
respondents, came to be regularized by the petitioners in terms of SRO 64
of 1994 vide Govt. Order No.138-PW(Hyd.) of 2006 dated 17.03.2006.
04. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record, we are convinced that there is enough documentary evidence on record,
in particular, the communications of the Executive Engineer, Superintending
Engineer and the Chief Engineer concerned, which referred the respondents as
daily wagers having acquired the eligibility to be regularized under SRO 64 of
1994. The plea of the petitioners that the respondents were engaged as part time
Community Participation (CP) Workers is not substantiated by any document
placed on record by the petitioners. Mere oral assertion, more particularly, when
it is contrary to the documentary evidence on record, cannot be accepted as a
gospel truth.
WP(C) No. 313/2026 2 of 4
05. Indisputably, the respondents have been performing their duties as Daily
Rated Workers for the last more than seven years having been engaged prior to
31.01.1994 and have, thus, acquired a right of consideration to be regularized as
Class IV employees in the department in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. Somewhat,
similar argument that the workers, who were styled as Casual Workers were not
entitled to the benefit of regularization envisaged under SRO 64 of 1994 was
subject matter of consideration of this Court in ‘State of J&K and Ors. Vs.
Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail and Anr.‘ 2013 SLJ 74, wherein it was categorically
held that a person, who has been a whole time worker and has been rendering
services for decades together, cannot be termed as casual labourer so as to deny
him the benefit of regularization envisaged under SRO 64 of 1994.
06. This Court has time and again deprecated and spurned the stand of the
petitioners that the workers serving the State and its departments for decades
together were the casual workers, not entitled to the benefit of regularization
under SRO 64 of 1994. It has been made known to the petitioners that a person,
who is a whole time worker and has been in the continuous service of the State
for the last more than seven years cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be called
a casual worker. A ‘casual worker’ is one, who is engaged to perform the duties,
which are casual and not perennial in nature. Similarly, ‘seasonal labourer’ is
one, who is engaged for a particular season for discharging a particular nature of
duties and is not engaged for the entire month and entire year.
07. We are constrained to observe that despite there being a number of
judgments clarifying the aforesaid issue, the petitioners are still taking an
WP(C) No. 313/2026 3 of 4
obdurate stand in the petitions to deny the genuine claim of the daily wagers,
who have earned a right of regularization under SRO 64 of 1994.
08. From a reading of the judgment, we find that though the consideration
order bearing No. PHEJ/CE/24 dated 11.05.2010 issued by the Chief Engineer
(Jal Shakti) was specifically challenged, but the same has not been inadvertently
quashed by the Tribunal, even though the intention of the Tribunal in directing a
fresh consideration of the case of the respondent was clearly manifested.
09. Be that as it may, we, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction,
quash the Order No. PJEH/GE/24 of 2010 dated 11.05.2010 and direct the
petitioners to consider the cases of the respondents for regularization, strictly as
per directions issued by the Tribunal in terms of the judgment impugned.
10. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition is found
devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along with all connected
application(s).
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
16.02.2026
Shammi
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
SHAMMI KUMAR
2026.02.18 13:31
WP(C) No. 313/2026
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
4 of 4
