The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar while hearing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution held petitioner entitled to regularization retrospectively in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 immediately on the completion of seven years of continuous service as a Security Guard.
The case of the petitioner was that he came to be engaged as a Casual Labourer on 7th July, 1997 and was posted as a Security Guard against an available vacant post and he continued in service for long without being regularized, despite several representations made by him. The petitioner, thereafter was regularized in the year 2010 as a Security Guard by the Respondent-University. The petitioner, before the High Court claimed that he was entitled to be regularized in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 immediately on the completion of seven years continuous service as Security Guard.
The Respondents pleaded that the services of the Petitioner were regularized in the year 2010 as per the policy of the University and that the petitioner was not strictly speaking a daily wager but was engaged on casual basis, as such, he was not covered by SRO 64 of 1994.
The court after going through the pleadings of the parties, observed, “Indisputably, the petitioner had completed his seven years continuous service rendered by him as Security Guard on 8th July, 2004 and, therefore, acquired requisite eligibility to be regularized w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 that is in the financial year next after he completed seven years service. It is also indisputable that the University of Jammu had not framed any policy for regularization of daily rated workers and rather had adopted the policy of Government of Jammu & Kashmir promulgated vide SRO 64 of 1994 in terms of University order No.Estab/95/5487-5607 dated 16th August, 1995. It is in pursuance of the policy of regularization framed by the Government and adopted by the University of Jammu vide Order dated 16.08.1995, several daily wagers working in the University were regularized from time to time on completion of seven years‟ continuous service”.
The court also looked into the difference between “Casual Labour‟ and “daily rated worker‟ or “daily wager‟ and observed that “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‘. The court relied on State of J&K and others v. Anuradha, (2011) 1 JKJ 870 [HC].
The court as such held that “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 64 of 1994, which, for the purpose of regularization of its daily wagers, the University adopted in the year 1995.
The court as such allowed the writ petition and held the petitioner to be entitled to regularization as Security Guard w.e.f. from 1st April, 2005 with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary till his actual regularization made in the year 2010. Further, the Court directed the Respondents to suitably revise the pensionary benefits, if any, recieved by the Petitioner, and to pay any arrears found due to him.
