Srinagar: Observing that granting parity to a handful of seasonal labourers could open floodgates for more than 3,000 similarly placed workers across Kashmir, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition seeking permanent casual labour status in the Irrigation department.
The significant ruling came in a writ petition filed by some seasonal labourers — Mohammad Amin Rather and others v. UT of J&K and others — was disposed of today by Justice Sanjay Parihar.
The bench held that courts cannot issue directions for regularisation or permanent absorption contrary to the constitutional scheme governing public employment, particularly when a blanket government ban on engagements is in force.
The petitioners had approached the High Court challenging an order dated December 24, 2020, whereby their claim for being brought at par with certain respondents as permanent casual labourers was rejected. They sought the same treatment and benefits that had earlier been extended to another set of seasonal labourers through a 2014 government order.
The petitioners claimed that they had been working as seasonal labourers since 1998 and were similarly situated as the respondents 6 to 9, who were later retained on a year-round basis and adjusted as permanent casual labourers. They alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, arguing that the department had created an arbitrary classification among employees performing similar duties.
However, the government opposed the plea, stating that the petitioners were engaged only during irrigation season on a need basis and did not satisfy the eligibility criteria under SRO 520 of 2017. It was further submitted that respondents 6 to 9 had been adjusted against watch and ward duties because of administrative exigencies and seniority considerations.
A major factor weighing with the court was the government’s submission that more than 3,000 seasonal labourers across various districts of Kashmir were working under similar conditions. The court observed that issuing a direction in favour of the petitioners would effectively amount to entering the policy domain of the executive and could have far-reaching administrative consequences.
Justice Parihar underscored the settled legal principle that Article 14 envisages “positive equality” and not “negative equality”. The court observed that merely because some employees had been granted certain benefits in the past does not automatically create an enforceable right in favour of others to seek identical relief contrary to statutory rules.
Relying upon Supreme Court rulings including State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), the court reiterated that illegality or irregularity cannot be perpetuated on the ground of parity, and that regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless appointments are made in accordance with law.
The court further noted that the petitioners ranked lower in the seniority list and continued to remain seasonal workers engaged only during irrigation seasons, unlike respondents 6 to 9 who had been assigned watch and ward duties on administrative grounds.
Holding that the distinction constituted a reasonable basis for differential treatment, the court concluded that no arbitrariness, mala fide intention, or statutory violation had been established warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the writ petition, along with connected applications, was dismissed by the High Court.
