Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 644 (JK)

Farooq Ahmad Khan v. State & Ors.

2011-11-19

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2011
1. Petitioner admittedly has been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 1984 but all along, on asking, has been performing the job of Works Supervisor in the respondent department. 2. According to learned counsel petitioner was entitled to be regularized as Works Supervisor in the year 1994 but while considering his case under SRO 64 of 1994 was regularized as Helper. 3. Various certificates placed on record, issued by the Executive Engineer concerned, are suggestive of the fact that the petitioner all along has been performing duties as Works Supervisor and he has been stated to be a deserving candidate for the post of Works Supervisor. 4. In the objections filed by the respondents it is admitted that the petitioner was engaged as Daily Rated Worker before 1984, in view of shortage of supervisory staff in the department, he might have been assigned the job of Works Supervisor but for all practical purposes he was engaged as a Daily Rated Worker, so he was regularized in the year 1994 against the post of Helper in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. Then again due to dearth of staff, petitioner has been performing job of Works Supervisor. It is added that there is no such provision to designate petitioner as Works Supervisor and the Executive Engineer is not competent to change the designation. 5. The moot question which emerge for consideration is as to "whether petitioner could be regularized as Works Supervisor". The answer has to be in affirmative for the reasons to follow. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner though engaged as Daily Rated Worker all along has been performing the job of Works Supervisor. When a person is performing job of Works Supervisor for more than a decade, he has to be regularized as against the same post. In my view I am fortified by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.175/1999 in the case captioned Abdul Rehman Reshi v. State & ors. 2010 (4) JKJ HC-142 (DB) dated 29th October, 2004, wherein appellant was noticed to have been performing duties of Works Supervisor but was regularized as Helper. In my view I am fortified by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.175/1999 in the case captioned Abdul Rehman Reshi v. State & ors. 2010 (4) JKJ HC-142 (DB) dated 29th October, 2004, wherein appellant was noticed to have been performing duties of Works Supervisor but was regularized as Helper. In the said judgment reliance was placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in case State of J&K & ors v. Muzaffar Mehraj (LPA No.203/1996) Decided on 15.12.1997 and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Wali Ahmad v. State of Bihar (1999 SCC L&S 734), wherein it is referred that a person was working as Gauge Reader for more than a decade, he was held entitled to regularization against the said post of Gauge Reader. The Division Bench of this Court on LPA No.175/1999 concluded that the appellant therein is held entitled to be regularized against the post of Works Supervisor, he be regularized and given benefits of the posts. It is further added that the monetary benefits would be given three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. Default in payment of the monetary benefits would entitle the appellant therein to the interest @ 12%. 7. In the judgment rendered by this Court in SWP No.1882/2009 captioned Nazir Ahmad Sofi & ors v. State of J&K & ors dated 18.3.2011, it was noticed that the petitioners therein were engaged as Daily Rated Workers before 1986 but were performing the job of Works Supervisors and Typists, their services were regularized as Helpers. They projected grievance to the effect that since they have been performing the job of Works Supervisors, therefore, their designation on regularization shall be as Works Supervisors. Learned Court while relying on the judgment rendered in the case captioned Showkat Ahmad Peer v. State & ors (SWP No.1259/2003) and the LPA No.175/1999 dated 29.10.2002 opined that the case of similar nature was dealt with, regularization of the petitioners therein as Workers Supervisors was ordered. On the basis of same judgment, benefit was extended to the petitioners Nazir Ahmad Sofi & ors. 8. When the Division Bench of this Court has settled the controversy in LPA No.175/1999, same law has to be followed, petitioner herein deserve the same treatment. 9. On the basis of same judgment, benefit was extended to the petitioners Nazir Ahmad Sofi & ors. 8. When the Division Bench of this Court has settled the controversy in LPA No.175/1999, same law has to be followed, petitioner herein deserve the same treatment. 9. Confronted with the judgments as rendered by the Division Bench and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as referred above, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Shah Aamir could not oppose the grant of writ. 10. This petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner who has been engaged as Daily Rated Worker and regularized as helper, on re-consideration shall be designated as Works Supervisor and shall also be admitted to benefits as shall be admissible under applicable rules. 11. Petition accordingly succeeds so shall stand disposed of along with connected CMP.