Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Saturday dismissed appeals by a group of daily-rated workers seeking regularisation under SRO 520 of 2017, holding they failed to prove they were engaged before the government’s March 2015 cut-off date.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice (Acting) Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohammad. Yousuf Wani delivered the judgment while hearing two connected Letters Patent Appeals filed by the daily-wagers against the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.
The appeals challenged an earlier order of a Single Judge, dated October 31, 2025, which had dismissed their writ petitions on similar grounds.
The petitioners had claimed they were engaged as daily-wage workers between 2012 and 2015, before the government imposed a ban on fresh appointments of daily-wagers on March 17, 2015, through Government Order No. 43-F of 2015.
They argued that their names had appeared in earlier departmental lists but were later dropped from a roster of 472 workers identified for regularisation, while 37 other individuals were added in their place — a move they termed arbitrary and discriminatory.
However, the Bench noted that an Inquiry Committee constituted by the department had scrutinised muster rolls and wage records and found that 128 persons, including the appellants, were not borne on the official rolls, and that their curriculum vitae had, in fact, been prepared after the 2015 cut-off date.
Significantly, the court observed that this Inquiry Committee report had never been challenged or objected to by the appellants before any forum.
“Mere inclusion of the names of the appellants in an earlier departmental list, by itself, cannot establish their engagement prior to 17.03.2015,” the Court held, adding that such lists were only preliminary and subject to verification against original records.
The Bench also rejected the argument that inclusion of 37 other persons in the final list amounted to discrimination, holding that the appellants had failed to first establish they were “similarly situated” to those who were ultimately included — persons the department said had been verified as engaged before the ban.
Acknowledging that muster rolls and service records typically remain in departmental custody, the Court nonetheless held this did not absolve workers of their burden to produce reliable material supporting their claims once the department disputed them.
“No such material has been placed on record,” the judges noted.
Concluding that the Single Judge had examined the matter appropriately and committed no error warranting interference, the Division Bench upheld the October 2025 verdict and dismissed both appeals along with connected miscellaneous applications.
