No Right to Regularisation: Jammu Kashmir High Court Rejects Plea of 51 Daily Wagers in Khrew Cement Case

No Right to Regularisation: Jammu Kashmir High Court Rejects Plea of 51 Daily Wagers in Khrew Cement Case

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by 51 daily rated workers of the JK Cement Factory, Khrew, upholding the earlier decision of a Single Judge which had refused to interfere with their disengagement, and ruling that such workers have no vested right to continue in service.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem pronounced the judgment on March 25, 2026, after reserving it on September 3, 2025, in LPA No. 13 of 2022 arising out of SWP No. 757/2019. The appeal had been filed against the judgment dated December 16, 2021, whereby the writ petition of the appellants was dismissed.

Jammu Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to DDC Member in Doda Assault Case; Questions SC/ST Act Applicability

The appellants, led by Ghulam Nabi Bhat and represented by Advocate Areeb Javed Kawoosa, had approached the court claiming that they had been engaged as daily rated workers in the JK Cement Factory, Khrew, on muster roll basis since 2005. They stated that their engagement was formalised in 2013 and that in 2018 they were converted into daily rated workers for a period of five years under an order dated June 14, 2018, subject to confirmation by the Board of Directors. However, their services were terminated through an order dated March 7, 2019, which withdrew the engagement of muster roll and 89-day workers.

Challenging the disengagement, the appellants had argued that the termination order was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, particularly as similarly situated employees had been adjusted in other government departments. They further contended that despite rendering over a decade of service and acquiring necessary skills, they were denied the benefit of redeployment even after the issuance of Government Order No. 48-IND of 2021 dated March 9, 2021, under which other staff of the company were accommodated.

The State, represented by Government Advocate Wasim Gul, defended the action, submitting that the appellants were engaged purely on a temporary basis in 2018 and had no enforceable right to continue. It was further argued that the Khrew Cement Plant had been ordered to shut down by the Jammu and Kashmir State Pollution Control Board on December 29, 2018, for non-compliance with environmental norms. The respondents pointed out that the company was facing severe financial distress, lacked budgetary support, and was unable to meet even its salary and retiral liabilities, while restoration of the plant would require an expenditure exceeding Rs 300 crore.

The Division Bench, after examining the record, noted that the essential facts were not in dispute, particularly that the appellants were engaged as daily wagers on a purely temporary basis and that the plant had been closed under regulatory directions. The court held that in such circumstances, the disengagement of daily rated workers could not be termed arbitrary or illegal.

Relying on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Bench reiterated that temporary or casual employees do not acquire any right to regularisation or continuation in service. Quoting from the judgment, the court observed, “When a person enters a temporary employment… he is aware of the consequences… Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post.”

The court further rejected the plea of discrimination, holding that the benefit of Government Order No. 48-IND of 2021 was extended to regular or permanent employees and not to daily wagers, and therefore the appellants could not claim parity with those who stood on a different legal footing.

Upholding the findings of the Single Judge, the Bench observed that there was no illegality or infirmity in the disengagement order dated March 7, 2019, and that the financial condition of the company and closure of the plant constituted valid grounds for discontinuing temporary engagements. The court also noted that the earlier direction granting the appellants preference in case of revival of the plant sufficiently safeguarded their limited equitable interest.

Finding no perversity or legal error in the judgment under challenge, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, bringing an end to the litigation.