HC says regularisation cannot be claimed as matter of right outside recruitment rules

14/05/2026

JAMMU, May 13: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by Mohammad Amin Rather and others seeking permanent casual labour status, observing that regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right outside the constitutional framework governing public employment.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, while dismissing the petition, held that the petitioners had failed to make out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment had been reserved on April 30 and was pronounced on May 12. The petitioners had challenged an order issued on December 24, 2020 rejecting their claim for being treated at par with certain workers who had been granted permanent casual labour status in 2014.
According to the petitioners, they had been working as seasonal labourers in the irrigation department since 1998 and were similarly placed to employees who were later adjusted as permanent casual labourers. They alleged discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The government, however, argued that the petitioners were engaged only on seasonal and need basis during irrigation periods and did not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed under SRO 520 of 2017. It also submitted that there was a blanket ban on engagements and that the workers cited for parity had been adjusted separately against watch and ward duties due to administrative exigencies and seniority.
After hearing both sides, the court observed that equality under Article 14 envisages positive equality and not negative equality. It said a benefit granted to another set of employees cannot automatically confer a legal right upon others in violation of the statutory framework.
The court noted that the workers cited by the petitioners were adjusted due to seniority and administrative requirements, while the petitioners were lower in the seniority list and continued to work only as seasonal labourers.
Relying on the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Umadevi, the High Court reiterated that courts cannot ordinarily direct regularisation or permanent absorption unless the initial appointment was made in accordance with law.
The court further observed that parity cannot be claimed in abstraction without establishing complete identity in terms of seniority, nature of duties, availability of posts and administrative requirements.
It also took note of the government's submission that over 3,000 seasonal labourers across Kashmir were working under similar conditions and that a blanket ban existed on fresh engagements.
Holding that judicial review under Article 226 is limited to examining the legality of the decision-making process and not policy matters, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it along with connected applications.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty