Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 279 (JK)

Gh. Qadir Wani v. State

2010-05-14

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2010
1. Training School, Nowpora Sopore, where the petitioner was appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar, was run by the Horticulture Department. In terms of SRO 370 issued vide notification dated 17.6.1986 under endorsement No. Agriculture-Horticulture 98/84, the said school was taken over by the SKUAST and all employees of the said Horticulture Training School were transferred to SKUAST. The employees of the said school were required to opt for University service on the terms and conditions as were to be determined by the Board of Management of the University in consultation with the Government. The petitioner while exercising the option opted to serve the Horticulture Department but continued to be on the rolls of SKUAST with effect 1.7.1986. Till date he has neither been repatriated nor has been absorbed in the SKUAST, resultantly has been deprived of service benefits to which he was entitled to i.e. having been in a particular scale for last 27 years was entitled to time bound promotion in terms of SRO 14 and in case he would have been absorbed in the SKUAST, then was entitled to placement in the next higher scale as regulated under the provisions of SKUAST statute. 2. The position as stated is not disputed but what has happened is that the petitioner has been treated a transferred employee to the SKUAST in terms of Section 50 of the SKUAST Act 1982 but while noticing position of the petitioner having been deprived of the service benefits, Assistant Controller, FVSC & AH, Shalimar vide communication dated 27.2.2004, addressed to the Registrar, SKUA.ST-K, Shalimar campus, has made mention of all the details and has recommended that the petitioner may be(sic) from 1.10.1987 so that his placement in the next higher scales is regulated under SKUAST statute or in alternative petitioner may be repatriated to his parent department (Horticulture Department). Then again vice communication dated 12.4.2004, Assistant Registrar has communicated to the Director Horticulture Department, J&K, to expedite repatriation of the petitioner to the Horticulture Department. Then vide communication dated 10.6.2004, addressed to the Director Horticulture Department, Assistant Comptroller, FVSC & AH, Shuhama, has recommended that till the repatriation case is settled, necessary sanction for petitioners placement in the next higher standard scale of pay, in terms of SRO 14 may be issued. When all this did not yield results, the instant petition came to be filed. 3. When all this did not yield results, the instant petition came to be filed. 3. In the reply the position has been admitted, however, it has been added that the case of the petitioner has been forwarded to the Administrative Department vide No.Adm/NG/PF/9191-93 dated 16.10.2006 for accord of necessary orders/instructions which is under consideration and no final orders have been issued so far, therefore, writ petition is premature. 4. While considering the peculiar features of the case, it shall be quite appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at the admission stage itself as is also agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is either he may be absorbed in the SKUAST or may be repatriated so as to enable him to get the service benefits as are available to him in both the situations. The position of the petitioner having been working continuously with effect from 1.7.1986 in the SKUAST is not disputed. Similarly his position of having opted for the services of his parent department (Horticulture Department) is also admitted. Why he has not been repatriated for such a long period, is not answered by the respondents, instead they have taken the plea that since he has not opted for the SKUAST service, therefore, cannot be absorbed, so has to be treated as a transferred employee in terms of Section 50 of the SKUAST Act. The Administrative Department (respondent No.1), before whom the case of the petitioner is stated to be pending from 2006, is required to take the decision with promptitude. No fault is attributable to the petitioner, instead un-necessarily he has been deprived of the service benefits as are available to him under law. Repatriation or permanent absorption in the SKUAST are the options available. Why the matter has remained pending for decision from 2006 till date is astonishing. 6. The petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (I) The respondents more particularly respondent No.1 shall issue necessary sanction/instruction as sought vis-a-vis case of the petitioner in terms of communication No.Adm/NG/PF/04/ 9191-93 dated 16.10.2006, within a period of four weeks positively. (II) The necessary sanction/orders shall clearly indicate either repatriation of the petitioner to the parent department (Horticulture Department) or permanent absorption in SKUAST with effect from 1986. (II) The necessary sanction/orders shall clearly indicate either repatriation of the petitioner to the parent department (Horticulture Department) or permanent absorption in SKUAST with effect from 1986. (III) In case of repatriation, the Horticulture Department shall be instructed to accord time bound promotion to the petitioner in accordance with SRO 14 within a particular time frame. (IV) In case order for permanent absorption of the petitioner in SKUAST is issued, the SKUAST authorities shall consider case of the petitioner for his placement in the higher scale as permissible under SKUAST statute, within a specific period. (V) Whatever decision shall be taken by the respondents, same be communicated to the petitioner on the expiry of four weeks from the date order is served upon respondent No.1. 7. Copy of the judgment be sent to all the respondents who in coordination shall ensure that the decision vis-a-vis case of the petitioner is taken by the respondent No.1 within the stipulated period of time. Order accordingly.