Post-Retirement Death Cannot Ground Compassionate Appointment; J&K HC Rejects JKCL Worker's Regularisation Plea

The Srinagar Bench held that a father's death after superannuation does not entitle his son to compassionate appointment, and consolidated-basis engagement carries no right to regularisation or deployment after the employer's winding up.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed a writ petition filed by Shahid Mehraj, a worker engaged on consolidated remuneration with the now-wound-up Jammu and Kashmir Cement Limited (JKCL). Justice Sanjay Dhar, sitting singly, declined the petitioner's prayers for regularisation in service, grant of a regular pay scale, and deployment to another government department or organisation. The court did, however, direct the respondents to clear all outstanding wages up to the date the petitioner actually performed duties with JKCL, within three months, failing which the amount will carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition.

The judgment, pronounced on 5 June 2026, turns on two distinct questions: whether a compassionate engagement made after a parent's post-retirement death can ripen into a right to regular appointment, and whether workers engaged on a consolidated basis are entitled to the same deployment benefits extended to substantive employees when an organisation is wound up.

The Petitioner's Claim and the JKCL Background

Shahid Mehraj's father worked as a Machinery Attendant with JKCL at its factory in Khrew for approximately 26 years. He retired on 31 March 2014. Within days of retirement, on 4 April 2014, he was diagnosed with Stage-IV lung cancer and died on 10 May 2014.

JKCL engaged the petitioner on compassionate grounds initially for 89 days at a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 4,500, by order dated 15 July 2014. His engagement was periodically extended, with a statutory break of one day each time. His remuneration was enhanced at various points: certain other employees on consolidated basis were raised to the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay (Rs. 5,200–20,200, GP-1800) by orders in 2016 and 2019, while the petitioner's remuneration was enhanced only to Rs. 12,000 by order dated 28 May 2020. His services were never regularised.

JKCL eventually became a sick unit and incurred heavy losses. The government decided to wind it up. By Government Order No. 48-IND of 2021 dated 9 March 2021, 303 out of 333 employees were deployed to different government departments. The remaining 30 workers, including the petitioner, were left out. JKCL took up their case with the government by communication dated 13 March 2021, but no action followed. The petitioner alleged that he had not been paid his monthly consolidated remuneration from 1 May 2019 and had not been deployed anywhere.

Through WP(C) No. 2842/2022, the petitioner sought: service benefits at par with similarly situated compassionate appointees; regularisation and deployment to another government department; and clearance of all outstanding wages.

The Respondents' Position

The UT of J&K and the other respondents filed a reply contesting each prayer. On the compassionate appointment claim, they argued that the petitioner's father had attained superannuation before his death, and therefore the petitioner was not eligible for compassionate appointment at all. The engagement on consolidated basis was, in their submission, an act of compassion by the organisation, not a recognition of any legal entitlement.

On the deployment question, the respondents pointed to Government Order No. 48-IND of 2021, which covered only employees appointed on a substantive basis in graded scales. Workers on daily-rated or consolidated basis were not covered by that order. On unpaid wages, the respondents stated they were ready to release dues of eligible employees for the period they had actually worked with JKCL.

The Legal Position on Compassionate Appointment After Retirement

Justice Dhar examined the settled legal position on compassionate appointment. The court stated that it is only when an employee dies while in service that his legal heirs become eligible for consideration under compassionate appointment schemes. The petitioner's father had retired on 31 March 2014 and died on 10 May 2014 — after superannuation, not during service.

The court considered whether SRO 43 of 1994 — the applicable compassionate appointment scheme — could be extended to JKCL. It held that even if SRO 43 of 1994 were made applicable to JKCL, the petitioner would still not qualify because his father had admittedly died after retirement. The court acknowledged that JKCL may have shown compassion given the circumstances — the father's death from cancer shortly after retirement — and engaged the petitioner on a consolidated basis. But that act of compassion, the court held, “does not give him any right to be appointed on regular basis on the pattern of compassionate appointment provided under SRO 43 of 1994.”

Consolidated-Basis Engagement and the Winding-Up Deployment Order

On the deployment claim, the court examined Government Order No. 48-IND of 2021 directly. A copy had been placed on record by both parties. The court found that the order covered only those JKCL employees who were appointed on a substantive basis in graded scales. Workers engaged on a daily-rated basis or on a consolidated basis were expressly outside its scope.

The court relied on the Division Bench judgment in Ghulam Nabi Bhat and Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors. (LPA No. 13/2022, decided on 25 March 2026). In that case, the Division Bench had rejected the claims of daily-wage employees of JKCL for deployment to other government departments, holding that they could not claim parity with employees who were serving on a regular or permanent basis. Justice Dhar applied the same ratio to the present petitioner.

The court went further and stated the general principle: an employee working on a consolidated basis or as a casual employee has no right to continue in service, and such engagement confers no claim for regularisation or continuity. Once JKCL was wound up, its daily-rated and consolidated-basis workers had no right to seek a mandamus — against JKCL or against the government — to continue their services or to be absorbed elsewhere.

Outstanding Wages: The One Relief Granted

The only relief the court granted concerned unpaid wages. The respondents had themselves stated in their reply that they were prepared to release unpaid wages of eligible employees for the period they had actually worked with JKCL. The court took note of this and directed the respondents to clear all outstanding wages of the petitioner up to the date he had actually performed his duties with JKCL.

The direction carries a default consequence: if the amount is not paid within three months from the date of the order, it will carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition until realisation.

Order

WP(C) No. 2842/2022 was disposed of on 5 June 2026. The prayer for regularisation in service and grant of a regular pay scale was declined. The prayer for deployment to any other government department or organisation was also declined. The respondents were directed to clear all outstanding wages of the petitioner up to the date he actually performed duties with JKCL within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum will run from the date of filing of the petition until realisation.