The J&K and Ladakh High Court has refused to extend regularisation benefits under SRO 520 of 2017 to 179 daily wagers employed in the Power Development Department (PDD), ruling that the petitioners failed to establish a foundational requirement — that they were engaged before the government-imposed ban on fresh daily-wage appointments. The judgment was uploaded on Sunday, 31 August, a day after it was delivered.

Background to the Dispute

The 179 daily wagers had approached the court contending that their names were wrongly excluded from a list of 472 PDLs/TDLs prepared by the PDD for consideration of regularisation under SRO 520 of 2017. They claimed to have been engaged as daily-rated workers between 2012 and 2015 — before the government imposed a ban on fresh engagement of daily wagers effective 17 March 2015, through Government Order No. 43-F of 2015.

The petitioners further argued that their names had appeared in earlier departmental lists, and that their subsequent exclusion from the final list of 472 was arbitrary and unjustified.

What the Court Found

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani dismissed the appeals, holding that a preliminary or provisional inclusion in a departmental list cannot, by itself, confer any right to regularisation when the core eligibility criterion — engagement prior to the cut-off date — remains unproven.

'The entitlement of the appellants depended clearly upon their establishing that they have been engaged prior to 17.03.2015,' the court noted in its judgment.

The bench also observed that once the government specifically disputed the claim of pre-ban engagement, the burden shifted squarely to the petitioners to produce reliable supporting material — which they failed to do.

Government's Stand and Inquiry Findings

Additional Advocate General Shahbaz Sikander submitted that an Inquiry Committee, after examining relevant departmental records, had recorded a finding against the daily wagers. The court noted that this finding had neither been shown to be perverse or arbitrary, nor demonstrated to be contrary to the record.

The respondents also explained that persons included in the final list of 472 had been verified as having been engaged prior to the imposition of the ban — a process the appellants could not clear.

Court's Reasoning on Custody of Records

The bench acknowledged that muster rolls and departmental records ordinarily remain in the custody of the department and may not be easily accessible to employees. However, it clarified that this practical difficulty does not relieve the claimants of their legal obligation to establish the fact of pre-cut-off engagement.

'No such material has been placed on record,' the judgment stated, underlining that the absence of documentary proof was fatal to the appellants' case.

Verdict and Implications

The court upheld the earlier single-bench order, finding no error of law or fact that would warrant interference. 'We find no merit in these appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed,' the Division Bench held.

The ruling sets a clear precedent: provisional listing in a departmental register does not substitute for verified proof of engagement before the statutory cut-off date. For the 179 daily wagers, all avenues for regularisation under SRO 520 now appear closed unless fresh material evidence emerges and a higher forum intervenes.