 Early Times Report
Jammu, May 13: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by Mohammad Amin Rather and others, seeking permanent casual labour status, holding that regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right outside the constitutional scheme governing public employment.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, while dismissing petition, held that the petitioners failed to make out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment was reserved on April 30, 2026 and pronounced on May 12, 2026.
The petitioners, through Mr. Hilal Ahmad Wani, Advocate, had challenged Order No. 9033-34 dated 24.12.2020, whereby their claim for being brought at par with respondents 6 to 9 as permanent casual labourers had been rejected. They also sought a direction to the authorities to extend to them the same treatment and benefits as were granted to respondents 6 to 9 vide Order No. 700-02 dated 30.06.2014.
The petitioners claimed that they had been working as seasonal labourers in the respondent department since 1998 and were similarly situated to respondents 6 to 9. It was argued that despite long years of service, they were not considered for adjustment or regular engagement, whereas respondents 6 to 9, allegedly placed similarly, were brought within the cadre of permanent casual labourers.
Their counsel contended that the action of the respondents was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the authorities had created an artificial classification among similarly situated employees without any rational basis. It was submitted that once respondents 6 to 9 were granted year-round engagement and permanent casual labour status, denial of similar treatment to the petitioners amounted to hostile discrimination.
Opposing the petition, the respondents, represented by Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar, Government Advocate, with Ms. Shaila Shameem, Assisting Counsel, submitted that the petitioners were merely seasonal labourers engaged on need basis during the irrigation season and did not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed under SRO 520 of 2017.
The respondents further submitted that a blanket ban existed on engagements and that the cases of respondents 6 to 9 stood on a different footing, as they had been adjusted against watch an “It was noted that more than 3,000 seasonal labourers were working in various districts of Kashmir under similar conditions and that a blanket ban had been imposed by the Government on all forms of engagements. In such circumstances, the Court held, issuing a direction for extending permanent casual labour status to the petitioners would amount to transgressing into the domain of executive policy.”
After considering the rival submissions, the Court observed that equality under Article 14 means positive equality and not negative equality. The Court held that merely because some benefit may have been extended to another set of employees, the same by itself does not confer an enforceable right upon the petitioners to claim identical relief contrary to the governing statutory framework.
The Court noted that respondents 6 to 9 were adjusted against watch and ward duties due to administrative exigencies and seniority, while the petitioners admittedly figured much lower in the seniority list and continued to remain seasonal labourers engaged purely during the irrigation season. This distinction, the Court held, constituted a reasonable basis for differential treatment.
Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, the High Court reiterated that regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right dehors the constitutional scheme governing public employment. The Court observed that courts must refrain from issuing directions for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance unless the appointment itself is made in accordance with law.
The Court further held that the petitioners could not claim parity merely on the ground that they were also engaged as seasonal labourers. Parity, the Court said, cannot be claimed in abstraction without establishing complete identity in terms of seniority, nature of duties, availability of posts and administrative requirements.
It was also noted that more than 3,000 seasonal labourers were working in various districts of Kashmir under similar conditions and that a blanket ban had been imposed by the Government on all forms of engagements. In such circumstances, the Court held, issuing a direction for extending permanent casual labour status to the petitioners would amount to transgressing into the domain of executive policy.
The Court observed that judicial review under Article 226 is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the decision itself, unless the same is shown to be patently arbitrary, mala fide or violative of statutory provisions.
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it. (JNF) |
