Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 154 (JK)

Zoona Bibi v. State

2001-07-26

B.L.BHAT, H.K.SEMA

body2001
1. Heard Mr. Syed Manzoor, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Qadri, SAAG for the respondent. 2. Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 28.09.2000 passed by learned Single Judge in SWP No. 814/1999, dismissing the writ petition. 3. Appellant is working as Sweeper (Safaiwala) on contingent basis @ Rs. 260/- per month to be paid out of contingent funds in Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Nawakadal. It is stated that the appellant has been working in the same condition for the last about 23 years. Petitioner filed the writ petition with the prayer for regularisation of her services in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. 4. Learned Single Judge rejected the contention on the ground that SRO 64 of 1994 relates to only persons engaged as daily wagers. Learned Single Judge also was of the view that since a contingent paid employee is not working against a regular post and she is not engaged as a full time worker, therefore her services cannot be regularised. We do not find any infirmity in both the findings of the learned Single Judge. 5. By the nature of the duties assigned to the contingent worker (Sweeper), they are being paid out of contingent funds of the establishment. They are not working as full time worker(s). They are only engaged as part time workers. This would show that they are not working against any regular vacancy and to that extent, their services cannot be ordered to be regularised. It is, however, contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant used to work for the whole day in the school. This being contentious issue, cannot be decided by a writ court, 6. Despite the order aforesaid, we are of the view that it is really a pitable case. It is unthinkable that in the present context of society where prices of essential commodities are sky high, a person can survive by a meager income of Rs. 260/- per month. It would amount to exploitation. Section 13 and 19 of the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir as adopted on 26th January, 1967, provide that there shall be socialistic pattern of society with a vow to promote social order and welfare of the people of State and all sort of exploitation has been abolished. Section 13 and 19 of the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir as adopted on 26th January, 1967, provide that there shall be socialistic pattern of society with a vow to promote social order and welfare of the people of State and all sort of exploitation has been abolished. Keeping in view the Directive Principles of the State Police as enshrined in Section 13 and 19 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, it is a high time that to give a meaningful interpretation to Section 13 and 19 of the Constitution, the State should evolve a formula or a scheme so that the citizen like the appellant at hand who toil and labour for earning daily bread must have two coarse meal a day. Keeping them a meager contingent paid of Rs. 260/- per month, whatever nature of the employment may be, in our view is too meager for them to survive. The appropriate Govt. must therefore, seriously consider the plight of these lowest strata of the people in the State and either to frame a scheme or any other formula so that they can survive with honour and dignity. 7. Needless to say the right to life as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as to live with dignity and honour and not mere living. The appropriate Government may examine this aspect of the matter and consider for framing appropriate scheme or any formula so that they can survive by affording atleast two coarse meals a day. Till such time the scheme or an formula is framed by the appropriate Govt. the case of the appellant may be considered to be paid at the rate of Minimum Wages Act as applicable in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This direction is, however, subject to the condition that the engagement is full time and not part time. We are also of the view that till the Govt. formulate a scheme or any other formula, such contingent engagement subject to the quantum of work may be made for the full job so that they can get the daily wages at the rate of Minimum Wages Act framed for the purpose. With the aforesaid directions and observations this appeal is disposed of.