The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has affirmed that continuous adhoc service spanning over two decades creates a legitimate expectation of regularization, and arbitrary exclusion from such benefits violates constitutional guarantees of equality. This judgment reinforces the principle that long-term state employment, regardless of initial designation, cannot be dismissed as temporary when it has acquired the character of permanency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the non-regularization of the services of late Mohd. Rafi Khan, who was engaged on an adhoc or stop-gap basis as a Junior Assistant on 26.11.1993 in the Health Department of Jammu & Kashmir. He served continuously until his death on 14.12.2014, rendering over 21 years of uninterrupted service. His case was recommended for regularization by the Empowered Committee constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010. However, when the final regularization order No.20-HME of 2013 dated 11.01.2013 was issued, his name was omitted, while his junior, Farooq Ahmed Zargar, was regularized on the same date.
Key Facts
Mohd. Rafi Khan was engaged on 26.11.1993 as a Junior Assistant on adhoc basis
He served continuously without break until his death on 14.12.2014
His service was reviewed and recommended for regularization by the Empowered Committee under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010
Final regularization order dated 11.01.2013 included his junior, Farooq Ahmed Zargar, but excluded him
No reason was given for his exclusion despite identical eligibility and recommendation
He died in service without receiving any regularization or consequential benefits
His widow, Sara Begum, filed a Special Writ Petition (SWP No.880/2016) seeking regularization and benefits
Procedural History
26.11.1993: Engagement of Mohd. Rafi Khan as Junior Assistant on adhoc basis
11.01.2013: Regularization order issued; junior included, deceased excluded
14.12.2014: Death of Mohd. Rafi Khan in service
2016: Sara Begum files SWP No.880/2016 before High Court
2021: SWP transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal as TA No.61/8572/2021
30.09.2025: Tribunal orders regularization with effect from 11.01.2013 and all consequential benefits
24.04.2026: Writ Petition (WP(C) No.978/2026) filed by State before J&K HC challenging Tribunal’s order
The Parties' Positions
The petitioners, representing the State of Jammu & Kashmir, contended that:
The deceased was engaged without a regular selection process
The J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, was repealed by S.O. dated 31.03.2020
The Jammu and Kashmir Casual and Other Workers Regular Engagement Rules, 2017, were also repealed after the Reorganization Act, 2019
In absence of any operative statutory framework, regularization was legally unsustainable
The respondent, Sara Begum, argued that:
The deceased rendered 21 years of continuous, uninterrupted service
His case was duly recommended by the statutory Empowered Committee
His junior, similarly situated, was regularized on the same date
Exclusion was arbitrary and discriminatory
Rights accrued under the repealed Act cannot be extinguished retrospectively
The State, as a welfare entity, must act fairly and compassionately
Relief Sought
The respondent sought:
Regularization of the deceased’s services with effect from 11.01.2013
Payment of all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, allowances, Sixth Pay Commission benefits, family pension, retiral benefits, and other statutory dues
Recognition of his service as qualifying for pensionary and other posthumous entitlements
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public employee who rendered over 21 years of continuous adhoc service, with statutory recommendation for regularization and whose junior was regularized on the same date, can be denied regularization solely on the ground that his initial engagement was temporary, and whether the repeal of the enabling statute can extinguish a right that had already crystallized.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The State contended that regularization could not be ordered in the absence of a live statutory framework, as both the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, and the 2017 Rules had been repealed. It argued that adhoc appointments made without competitive selection lacked legal sanctity and could not be converted into regular posts posthumously. The State further submitted that the Tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction by creating a right not recognized by any current law.
For the Respondent/State
The widow, Sara Begum, relied on the principle of equal protection under Article 14 and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. She cited the statutory recommendation by the Empowered Committee and the fact that her husband’s junior was regularized on the same date as proof of arbitrariness. She emphasized that the State had benefited from over two decades of uninterrupted service and could not now evade obligations by invoking technicalities of repealed laws.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the deceased’s service and the State’s conduct over more than two decades. It noted that the length and continuity of service had transformed what began as an adhoc position into one with the character of permanency. The Court observed that the State had not merely tolerated but relied upon the deceased’s services for over 21 years, making his role integral to the functioning of the department.
"After extracting work from the deceased employee for more than two decades, State cannot now claim that he was merely an adhoc worker or was engaged on stop gap arrangement, rather his continuity in the department in whatever capacity, goes to show the permanency of the work, he was made to perform during his lifetime, thus, State being a model employer is expected to act fairly and cannot follow a, ‘hire and fire’ policy."
The Court rejected the State’s reliance on the repeal of the 2010 Act and the 2017 Rules, holding that rights accrued under a repealed statute cannot be retrospectively nullified, particularly when such nullification would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the exclusion of the deceased while including his junior constituted hostile discrimination without any rational basis.
"Once the Empowered Committee has recommended the deceased’s name and similarly situated juniors were regularized, the petitioners cannot be heard to say his service could not be regularized merely because he was initially engaged on adhoc or temporary basis. Such an action violates the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
The Court further underscored the humanitarian dimension, noting that the widow sought regularization not for personal gain but to secure dignity and financial security for herself and her children through family pension and other benefits. The State, as a welfare entity, was held to a higher standard of fairness and compassion.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s order dated 30.09.2025, directing the regularization of the services of late Mohd. Rafi Khan with effect from 11.01.2013, the date his junior was regularized. The State was directed to grant all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, allowances, Sixth Pay Commission benefits, family pension, retiral benefits, and other statutory dues. The Court emphasized that the State must process and disburse these benefits without further delay.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Continuous Service Creates Legitimate Expectation
Practitioners must argue that service exceeding 15-20 years, even if initially adhoc, acquires the character of permanency
The State cannot deny regularization on technical grounds when the employee has performed duties continuously and the State has benefited from such service
The doctrine of legitimate expectation applies strongly where statutory committees have recommended regularization
Repeal of Statute Does Not Erase Accrued Rights
Rights crystallized under a repealed law cannot be extinguished retrospectively
Courts will protect accrued benefits even if the enabling statute is no longer in force
This principle applies to pension, gratuity, and family pension claims arising from long-term service
Discrimination in Regularization Is Per Se Arbitrary
Exclusion of a senior employee while regularizing a junior with identical service conditions violates Article 14
The State must provide a rational, non-arbitrary basis for differential treatment
Absence of such justification renders the action unconstitutional
Practitioners should immediately file applications for regularization in cases involving 15+ years of continuous adhoc service
Where a junior is regularized but a senior is not, file writ petitions citing Article 14 and legitimate expectation
Demand all consequential benefits including arrears, pay scales, and pension entitlements from the date of regularization of the similarly situated junior
