Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar

Order Date: 29.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: a group of 22 long‑serving employees (including Hakeem Ishfaq Ahmad, Mohammad Saleem Padder, etc.) of J&K Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited (SICOP), employed on ad‑hoc, contractual or consolidated basis since 1998‑2013.
  • Respondents: Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and SICOP (now merged into J&K IDC).
  • Background: Petitioners sought direction for regularisation of their services with all consequential benefits, alleging they have completed more than seven years of service and have been drawing regular pay scales, medical allowance, TA/DA and pay revisions.
  • SICOP’s internal policy: Board of Directors, in its 83rd meeting (10‑07‑2012), constituted a Committee to examine regularisation of temporary staff. The Committee’s report was placed before the Board. In the 84th meeting (07‑08‑2014), the Board adopted a resolution (Agenda Item No.84.09) that employees with seven years of continuous service would be regularised on merit; those with less than seven years would be considered by a Committee appointed by the Managing Director.
  • The resolution also laid down detailed criteria for regularisation (minimum pay scale, qualification, no pending disciplinary/criminal proceedings, three‑year probation after placement, age‑limit relaxation, five‑year service requirement, provision for early regularisation on exceptional merit, and affidavit requirement for truthful information).
  • Subsequent developments: SICOP merged with SIDCO to form J&K IDC on 25‑03‑2022. Respondents argued that no government policy exists for regularising contractual employees and that the merger nullified the earlier Board resolution.
  • Petitioners produced Right‑to‑Information documents showing that, from January 2010 onward, SICOP had regularised at least nine employees on similar bases, creating a legitimate expectation of similar treatment.
  • Legal precedents cited: Supreme Court decisions in Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993), Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006), Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (2024), and Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) emphasizing the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments, and the need to consider long‑term continuous service for regularisation.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the 2014 Board resolution remains in force and has not been revoked by any subsequent resolution of SICOP or J&K IDC.
  • It found that the petitioners have a vested right to regularisation after completing seven years of ad‑hoc/contractual service, in line with the Board’s policy and Supreme Court jurisprudence.
  • The writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to regularise the petitioners in the posts they currently occupy, with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, from the date of completion of seven years of service.
  • The regularisation must be effected within three months of the date a copy of this judgment is served on the respondents.

Topics: Employment Regularisation, Legal Remedy, Public Sector Employment