Denying Regularisation To Daily Wager After Extracting Work For Over 34 Years Is Illegal, Inequitable: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh High Court dismissed the Union Territory's challenge to the regularisation of a daily wager, holding that denial of regularisation after extracting work for more than three decades would be illegal, inequitable, and contrary to the welfare obligations of the State.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli, Justice Rajnesh Oswal noted that the respondent's engagement stood clearly established from official records, observing that “the Aadhaar-based verification format shows his engagement pursuant to the order dated October 5, 1991, and the Irrigation Department's list of Daily Wagers reflects his service period as 27 years and 7 months at that time.”

Taking a serious view of the prolonged service rendered by the respondent, the Court held that “after the petitioners have extracted work from the respondent for a period exceeding 34 years, to deny his regularization would not only be in contravention of SRO 64 of 1994 but would also be grossly iniquitous.”

Rejecting the stand of the administration, the Bench emphasised the welfare character of the State, stating that “the Union Territory of J&K, being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to contend after three decades of service that the respondent was not entitled to regularization.”

The Court also dismissed the plea that granting relief would result in financial and administrative burden, holding that “the potential administrative and financial burden does not justify relieving the petitioners of their duty, as they have fundamentally failed to discharge their clear statutory obligations.”

Noting the undue delay caused by the authorities, the Court recorded that the respondent was “49 years of age” when he approached the Court in 2019 and “has now attained the age of 56 years,” yet the petitioners continued to raise “frivolous obstacles to the regularization of his services.”

Finding no infirmity in the Tribunal's order, the High Court held, “we do not find any illegality in the same warranting interference at our end,” and further directed that “the petitioners are also bound to release the unpaid wages in favour of the respondent.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Case-Title: UT of J&K vs Som Raj, 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order