Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 301 (JK)

Mohd. Amin Parra v. State Of J. &K.

2000-12-23

R.C.GANDHI, SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2000
1. This LPA has arisen out of judgment and order dated: 26-09-2000 passed in SWP No. 1154/94 whereby the cause of the petitioners that they should have been regularised against the post of Works Supervisors and not as Helpers has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The appellants were engaged as Daily Rated Workers in the year 1987 and 1988 and had been discharging the duties of Works Supervisors till their services came to be regularised under SRO 64 of 1994 as Helpers in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 (un-revised). Aggrieved of their regularisation against the post of Helper they approached the court for regularisation of their services as Works Supervisors in the pay scale of Rs. 775-1025. The learned Single Judge after appreciating the rival contentions, has dismissed the writ petition observing that the appellants were not entitled to be regularised as Works Supervisors and have rightly been regularised against the post of Helpers. 3. The appellants has challenged the order under appeal on the ground that the learned Single Judge has come to erroneous conclusion as the appellants were entitled to be regularised as Works Supervisors in the pay scale of the said post in terms of SRO 59 of 1990 which provides the pay scales for the posts of Works Supervisors. The provisions of SRO 64 of 1994 should not have been made applicable in the cases of the appellants. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, perused the order under appeal and other evidence on record. 5. The appellants admittedly were working as Daily Rated Workers when the Government promulgated the policy contained in SRO 64 of 1994, for regularisation of the services of the Daily Rated Workers who have completed seven years continuously. The respondents have regularised the services of the appellants in terms of Rule 5 of SRO 64 of 1994 which reads as: - Regularisation of Daily Rated Workers: All the Daily Rated Workers who on 31-03-1994 are eligible under rule 4 for regularisation shall with effect from 01-04-1994, be appointed on regular pay scale of Class-IV prescribed in the concerned department for the relevant category of posts in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940; Provided that if any of the categories have higher pay scale of Rs. 775-1025, such employees) shall be placed in the higher pay scale of Rs. 750-940; Provided that if any of the categories have higher pay scale of Rs. 775-1025, such employees) shall be placed in the higher pay scale of Rs. 775-1025 after completion of two years of service in the scale of Rs. 750-940. 6. This provision of law provides that the appellants being Daily Rated Workers were eligible for appointment in the regular pay scale of Class-IV i.e. Rs. 750-940. The appellants have accordingly been appointed as Helpers in the said pay scale. The submission of the learned counsel is that the appellants should have been regularised against the post of Works Supervisors which carries higher pay scale. The appellants are Daily Wagers were not working against available posts of Works Supervisors in a particular pay scale, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of the proviso attached to rule 5 of SRO64of 1994. 7. The next argument of the learned counsel that the appellants services should have been regularised as Works Supervisors in terms of the provisions of SRO 59 of 1990, is also misplaced. SRO 59 of 1990 deals with the categorisation of the posts of Works Supervisors and other technical posts. It does not provide that the Daily Wagers if working as Works Supervisors, shall be regularised as Works Supervisors. 8. The respondent-Government has promulgated the policy for regularisation of the services of Daily Rated Workers contained in SRO 64 of 1994 which provides that the eligible Daily Rated Workers are entitled to be regularised in the pay scale of Class-1 V posts, after having completed seven years continuously. Under the policy if the post are not available, the Government is under obligation to create the posts in Class-TV category for regularisation of their services. The appellants were not working against the post. They have been regularised after creating the posts in the pay scale of Class-IV, in terms of Rule 5 of SRO 64 of 1994. The appellants thus were not entitled to be regularised by creating posts in higher pay scales. Assuming it is done, it shall be in violation of the provisions of the Rules. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant could not make out any sustainable ground to convince us to take different view to that what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. 10. No case warranting interference in the order under appeal is made out. Assuming it is done, it shall be in violation of the provisions of the Rules. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant could not make out any sustainable ground to convince us to take different view to that what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. 10. No case warranting interference in the order under appeal is made out. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.