Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 664 (JK)

Anjana Sharma v. State Of J&K

2015-12-11

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. This writ petition is filed praying for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing Order No. Estt/2002-03/31-34, dated 08.04.2002 issued by respondent No. 5 whereby petitioner's claim for regularisation has been turned down. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was engaged by the Deputy Director, Horticulture Department, Poonch-Rajouri on 02.07.1994 as skilled labour/daily wager and petitioner continued to serve as such. She had also undergone six months training in the art of Fruit/Vegetable Craft Centre, Chand Nagar, Jammu. Apprehending her termination, petitioner filed SWP No. 1051/2001 seeking regularisation in terms of the policy adopted by the State Government as she has completed more than seven years of service as daily wager. This Court while disposing of the SWP Nos. 1051/2001 and 1077/2001 issued following directions:- "In view of the above, these petitions which are admitted to hearing are disposed of with a direction that respondents would consider the claims of the petitioners for regularisation of their service. The petitioners appear to have completed more than seven years of service and as such are entitled to regularisation in terms of the policy adopted by the State Government. The respondents are accordingly directed to take notice of the above legal position and do the needful within a period of three months from the date, a copy of this order is made available to them by the petitioners. In case, any adverse order is passed, that be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks. In case, the petitioners are in service and have actually worked, they would be paid their salaries within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondents." 3. In compliance to the directions issued by this Court, respondents after re-consideration of the matter turned down the petitioner's claim by order dated 08.04.2002. Aggrieved by the said order this writ petition has been filed. 4. The only ground on which the respondents have turned down the petitioner's claim for regularisation is that she was engaged after imposition of ban on engagement of daily wager i.e. 01.04.1994. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that by Govt. Aggrieved by the said order this writ petition has been filed. 4. The only ground on which the respondents have turned down the petitioner's claim for regularisation is that she was engaged after imposition of ban on engagement of daily wager i.e. 01.04.1994. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that by Govt. Order No. 1285, issued pursuant to Cabinet decision No. 135/1HB), dated 10.09.2001 the cutoff date was extended to 06.11.2001, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be regularised in terms of the Rules. Learned senior counsel heavily relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2013 SLJ 73 : 2012 (4) JKJ 1051 [HC] (State of J&K and Ors. v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail and Ors). 6. The issue regarding engagement and regularisation of Daily Rated Workers/Daily Wagers was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported as 2013 SLJ 73 : 2012 (4) JKJ 1051 [HC]. (State of J&K and Ors. v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail and Ors.). In paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the said judgment, it has been held thus:- "13. As against Order No. 144-GAD of 2001, dated 02.02.2001, 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 bund of LPAs with lead case Ashok Kumar v. State of J&K and Ors., which have been decided vide judgment dated 26.07.2002, reported in 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 06.11.2001 in terms of Govt. Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001, dated 06.11.2001 which has been issued in pursuance to Cabinet Decision No. 135/11(B) dated 10.09.2001. 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 Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. (supra). 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 Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. (supra). In our view, this judgment has no application in view of the fact that the respondents are employed the State Government and are claiming the benefit of a scheme formulated by the Notification dated 31st 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. 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 regularised in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work-Charged Employees (Regularisation) Rules, 1994." 7. Said judgment has also been followed while deciding a bunch of LPAs i.e. LPASW No. 115/2002, along with connected matters. 8. Following the above said judgment and the principle laid down therein, order dated 08.04.2002 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for regularisation within two months from the date copy of this order is served on them.