Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 54 (JK)

State of J&K v. Niaz Ahmed

2015-02-25

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : D.S. Thakur, J. Since the aforementioned LPAs involve common questions of facts and law, they are taken up together for final disposal and shall be governed by this common judgment and order. 2. All these letters patent appeals arise out of judgments and orders dated 4.3.2002, 19.2.2002, 18.3.2002, 17.10.2001, and 7.11.2001 passed in writ petitions filed by the private respondents herein seeking an appropriate writ in the nature of the mandamus, directing the respondents-State/appellants herein to consider their cases for regularisation under the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work-charged employees (Regularisation) Rules, 1994 notified vide SRO 64. 3. The writ court by virtue of judgments and orders dated 4.3.2002, 19.2.2002, 18.3.2002, 17.10.2001, and 7.11.2001, which are impugned in the present LPAs, has issued directions for considering the claims of the petitioners for regularisation. 4. The principle ground in which the judgments and orders dated 4.3.2002, 19.2.2002, 18.3.2002, 17.10.2001, and 7.11.2001 have been questioned in the aforementioned LPAs are that the benefit of regularisation in terms of SRO 64 could not be ordered in case of the petitioners/respondents herein inasmuch as the said benefit was available only to such daily wagers, who, in terms of Rule 5, were eligible for regularisation on 31.3.1994 in terms of Rule 4 of the said SRO. 5. It was further urged that Rule 7 of the SRO 64 imposes a restriction on engagement of daily rated workers/work-charged employees w.e.f., the commencement of the SRO 64 and since the petitioners/respondents before this court were engaged as daily rated workers contrary to the ban imposed in terms of Rule 7 of the said SRO 64, no direction could be issued to consider their cases for regularisation. 6. It was further urged that since the petitioners were engaged after the ban period i.e, 31.1.1994 in terms of Govt. Order No. 144-GAD of 2001, dated 02.02.2001, their services had been disengaged and, therefore, in those cases, there could be no direction to consider the cases of the petitioners for their regularisation. 7. It was further urged that the benefit of Govt. Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001, dated 06.11.2001 could not be extended to the petitioners/respondents herein inasmuch as they applied only to adhoc employees and not daily wagers. 8. 7. It was further urged that the benefit of Govt. Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001, dated 06.11.2001 could not be extended to the petitioners/respondents herein inasmuch as they applied only to adhoc employees and not daily wagers. 8. The issue, which arises for adjudication in the present batch of appeals has already been conclusively dealt with by Division Bench of this Court in LPASW No. 33/2010 titled State of J&K and Ors. v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail and Ors. reported in 2012 (4) JKJ 1051 [HC] : 2013 SLJ 73. 9. What was stated in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment (supra) is reproduced hereunder: "13. As against order No. 144-GAD of 2001, dated 2.2.2001, the daily wagers/work charged employees, who were aggrieved, filed number of writ petitions. Finally the judgment passed in those writ petitions were challenged by medium of bunch of LPAs with lead case Ashok Kumar v. State of J&K and Ors. which have been decided vide judgment dated 26.7.2002, 2003 (4) JKJ 93 [HC] : 2003 SLJ 475. In the reported judgment, position vis-a-vis right of casual labour/daily wagers/adhoc employees, has been taken note of and as many as 15 directions were issued as contained in Para 45 of the judgment. It may not be out of place to mention here that the cut-off date has also been extended to 6.11.2001 in terms of Govt. Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 6.11.2001 which has been issued in pursuance to Cabinet Decision No. 135/11(B) dated 10.9.2001. The above referred judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by medium of Civil Appeal No. 9298 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No. 9299 of 2003. While disposing of Civil Appeal No. 9299 of 2003, the following order has been passed:- "Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others (supra). In our view, this judgment has no application in view of the fact that the respondents are employed by the State Government and are claiming the benefit of a scheme formulate by the Notification dated 31st of January, 1994, as modified by Notification dated 6th November, 2001. The High Court is perfectly justified in its judgment. We are satisfied that the impugned judgment of the High Court needs no interference at our hands. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The High Court is perfectly justified in its judgment. We are satisfied that the impugned judgment of the High Court needs no interference at our hands. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs." 14. What would emerge from above is that the daily rated workers/work charged employees who were appointed after imposition of ban and continued beyond ban period were given benefit of notification dated 6th November, 2001, which, in-effect, would mean that the daily rated workers/work charged employees engaged even after 01.04.1994 till 6th November, 2001, were also entitled to be regularized in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work-charged Employees (Regularization) Rules, 1994." 10. We see no reason to take a view different from the one, which has already been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail's case (supra). Accordingly, following the said judgment, as also the observations of the Apex Court reproduced in paragraphs 13 and 14 here in above, we dismiss the appeals and uphold the judgment and orders dated 4.3.2002, 19.2.2002, 18.3.2002, 17.10.2001, and 7.11.2001, providing for according consideration to the cases of the petitioners for regularisation. The appellants are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularisation within three months from today. 11. Connected CMAs also stand disposed of accordingly.