Latest News

Court says temporary employees working for 7+ years should be given benefits of regular employees


➡️ Click here to join our Whatsapp Group

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir has ruled that a person who has been temporarily employed and continuously working for more than seven years should not be denied the benefits of regularization under the relevant Special Recruitment Order (SRO).

Justice Sanjeev Kumar made these observations while hearing a petition from an employee of the University who was seeking retrospective regularization. The petitioner, Ghar Singh, argued that even though his services were regularized with immediate effect on March 25, 2010, according to the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994 adopted by the University, he should have been regularized immediately after completing seven years of service in 2004.

Justice Kumar, in his decision, granted the petitioner’s request for regularization as a Security Guard, effective from April 1, 2005, with all associated benefits, including salary arrears from April 1, 2005, until his actual regularization in 2010.

The court emphasized that a person who is engaged in temporary work, receives wages sanctioned by the Government, and performs their duties continuously for more than seven years cannot be considered as “casual labor” and denied the benefits of regularization under SRO 64 of 1994.

The court also noted that the petitioner had continuously served as a Security Guard since July 7, 1997, without any breaks, and should not be considered a “casual laborer.” Casual labor refers to intermittent or sporadic employment, whereas a daily rated worker or daily wager is someone engaged in continuous service and paid on a daily basis, according to the judgment.

The court clarified that the respondent-University did not argue that the petitioner’s claim for retrospective regularization was made after his retirement. Although there was a considerable delay in lodging the claim, the court decided to entertain the petition due to the unique circumstances of the case.

The court stated that the retrospective regularization granted to the petitioner, even after his retirement, would not adversely affect the rights of other University employees. It was not a case where seniority would need to be re-determined upon the petitioner’s retrospective regularization, which would have unsettled the rights of other employees, according to the judgment.

The court observed that a low-level employee such as a daily wager or Security Guard often has no choice but to accept the employment terms dictated by the employer. In a situation where a petty employee like the petitioner, who had rendered long services, is pitted against a powerful statutory body like the University, it is difficult for the employee to challenge the employment terms offered at the time of appointment, the court held.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *