Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 252 (JK)

Jagdish Raj v. State Of J. &K.

2001-10-19

S.K.GUPTA, SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2001
1. We have heard Mrs. Surinder Kour, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. B.S. Manhas, learned AAG, for the respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we propose to dispose of this appeal (LPA (SW) No. 358/ 2001 at the preliminary stage. 2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 24th August, 2000, by which the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned single judge. 3. Case of the appellants-writ petitioners is that their engagement in the Adult/Non-Formal Education Scheme was initially on consolidated monthly wages of Rs 100/- per month and subsequently, raised to Rs 200/- by the District Project Officer, Kathua. That the appellants-writ petitioners were engaged as part-time instructors in a scheme. The appellants-writ petitioners claimed to be regularised as teachers and paid wages at par with the teachers of the Education Department. Appellants-writ petitioners further pleaded that they be provided 3% reservation for their absorption in the Education Department as teachers. 4. It is not disputed that the writ petitioners are not working against any regular post and are only engaged as part-time instructors. It is no longer res-integra that employees under the scheme could not ask for more than what is intended by the scheme to be given; otherwise it would frustrate the scheme itself. When the government has floated a scheme to operate with the help of part-time teaching staff, it is not, ordinarily, for the court to modify and direct the government to employ the whole-time staff and implement the scheme in a manner different to the mechanism provided by the government for the implementation of such scheme. 5. We do not parity on facts between part-time instructors engaged under this scheme and other regular teaching staff in the Education Department. Status of an employee is to be determined from the terms and conditions of his order of appointment. So the writ petitioners are not entitled to regularisation. Writ petitioners, therefore, cannot claim parity in pay as is being given to the non-vocational teachers based on the principle of equal pay. for equal work. It is entirely the function of the State government to take a policy decision as the scheme was the result of such a decision so as to provide benefit to the people. Writ petitioners, therefore, cannot claim parity in pay as is being given to the non-vocational teachers based on the principle of equal pay. for equal work. It is entirely the function of the State government to take a policy decision as the scheme was the result of such a decision so as to provide benefit to the people. As their engagement is only on consolidated wages, which clearly implies that is like an arrangement on daily wage basis. 6. The writ petitioners cannot ask for regularisation as neither they are members of the civil service nor holding any post under the state. The writ petitioners are, thus, not entitled to any protection either under the provisions of the constitution or the relevant recruitment rules. The position of an employee engaged on consolidated wages is like an arrangement on daily wage basis. As regards the plea of the writ petitioners-appellants that the government provided 3% reservation for their absorption in the Education Department in terms of Government Order No. 325-Edu. of 1985 dated 16-07-1985, it may be pointed out that it stood repealed by the SRO-126 dated 28-06-1994. No such provision now exists in the Rules and, therefore, cannot be invoked. Apart from that, the writ petitioners having not been appointed to any post can neither claim regularisation nor parity of the salary with the regularly appointed teachers. 7. After consideration of the aforesaid grounds urged by the writ petitioners, the petition was dismissed by the learned single judge. We respectfully in agreement with the view taken by the learned single judge. 8. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned passed by the learned single judge, which warranted our interference. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.