Jammu Kashmir High Court Dismisses Plea of Seasonal Labourers Seeking Parity with Permanent Casual Workers  | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed a writ petition filed by a group of seasonal labourers seeking parity with another set of workers who had earlier been granted the status of permanent casual labourers in the Irrigation Department.

The petition, titled Mohammad Amin Rather and Others v. UT of JK and Others, was decided by Justice Sanjay Parihar on May 12, 2026. The matter had been reserved for judgment on April 30 and the full judgment was pronounced and uploaded on May 12.

The petitioners, represented by advocate Hilal Ahmad Wani, had challenged Order No. 9033-34 dated December 24, 2020, through which their claim for being treated at par with respondents 6 to 9 as permanent casual labourers was rejected.

The petitioners contended that they had been working as seasonal labourers in the department since 1998 and were similarly situated to respondents 6 to 9, who were granted year-round engagement and permanent casual labour status through Order No. 700-02 dated June 30, 2014.

They argued that denial of similar benefits violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and amounted to hostile discrimination. The petitioners maintained that all the workers had originally been engaged under the same scheme and performed similar duties.

On behalf of the Union Territory administration, Government Advocate Jehangir Ahmad Dar, assisted by advocate Shaila Shameem, opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioners were only seasonal labourers engaged during irrigation seasons on a need basis and did not fulfil eligibility conditions prescribed under SRO 520 of 2017.

The respondents further submitted that respondents 6 to 9 had been adjusted against watch and ward duties on the basis of seniority and administrative exigencies and that there was a blanket government ban on fresh engagements.

After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Court observed that equality under Article 14 envisages “positive equality” and cannot be invoked to perpetuate irregularities or grant benefits contrary to statutory provisions.

The Court noted that the petitioners were lower in the seniority list and continued to work only during irrigation seasons, unlike respondents 6 to 9 who had been adjusted against specific duties due to administrative requirements.

Relying on Supreme Court judgments including E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, Randhir Singh v. Union of India, and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), the Court held that regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless appointments are made in accordance with the constitutional scheme governing public employment.

The Court also took note of the government’s submission that more than 3,000 seasonal labourers were working in various districts of Kashmir under similar conditions and that directing permanent casual labour status would amount to interference in executive policy matters.

Finding no arbitrariness or illegality in the decision-making process, the Court dismissed the writ petition along with connected applications and vacated all interim directions, if any.