NEW DELHI, FEB 03: The Supreme Court of India directed the Jammu and Kashmir government to give details of the individuals who have been regularized under SRO-520 of 2017.
“Let the State give a further affidavit disclosing therein the particulars of the individuals who have so far been regularized in terms of SRO-520 of 2017. This affidavit shall be filed within four weeks,” said a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar.
The top court was hearing a petition, challenging the 2020 judgment by a division bench of J&K and Ladakh High Court which had partly allowed the erstwhile government’s appeal in which the State had said that someone engaged as a casual labourer against a “non-substantive post” had absolutely no claim, in law, to seek regularization.
The petitioner had claimed regularization of his services after having been engaged as a casual labourer in the year 1997, and had filed a writ petition in 2002 which was disposed of by the order of the writ court on June 2008, by providing that the authorities would consider the petitioner, who is continuing in service, for regularization under law, if he is similarly situated with them in all respects.
“True that the casual labourer cannot seek regularization as no vested right accrues in his favour for such claim,” the division bench of the High Court had said. But if the employer comes up with any scheme for the benefit of such employees governing their engagement, the service of the casual labourers has to be, in such eventuality, dealt with under the provisions of such scheme and the benefit, if any, getting accrued as such to them cannot be arbitrarily denied to them, the Division Bench had said. “The Government of J&K for the regularization of casual labourers and daily rated workers issued two SROs; SRO 64 of 1994 pertaining to the regularization of daily rated workers and SRO 520 of 2017 for the regularization/ absorption of casual labourers,” the court had said.
The provisions of the SRO 520, the DB had said, make it unambiguously clear that it will apply to all those CSLWs who are engaged upto 17.03.2015, therefore, the rigour of retrospective application of the SRO was also not coming in the way as the respondent/ petitioner is admittedly engaged as a casual labourer in the year 1997, therefore, he would fall in the category of employees engaged upto 17th March 2015. “….we are of the considered view that the writ court has based its conclusion on a wrong premise and the same being not in accordance with the rules or the law on the subject needs to be interfered with,” the court said in the judgement on 20.10.2020, adding, “ Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment & order …..with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the respondent/ petitioner for his regularization on the touchstone of the provisions of SRO 520 of 2017.”
