Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 236 (JK)

STATE OF J&K v. RAKESH KUMAR

2016-04-28

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. This appeal is preferred against the order made in SWP No. 2822/2001 dated 26.11.2009, wherein the learned Single Judge had directed the appellants herein to regularise the services of the writ petitioner with effect from the date he became eligible within a period of three months from the date a copy of the order was served upon them. It was also ordered that respondent would be entitled to all other benefits which he would otherwise have received on the completion of the seven years service. 2. The case of the writ petitioner before the writ Court was that he was appointed as Daily Wager in the month of August, 1996 against the sanctioned post in the Medical College, Jammu vide recommendation dated 28.09.1999 along with 47 other persons as Daily Wagers and on completion of seven years of requisite service, he would be entitled for regularisation under SRO-64 of 1994. The Principal Medical College, Jammu vide his communication dated 13.03.2001 recommended that out of 47 persons appointed as Daily Wagers, 39 persons had completed the requisite term of seven years and were required to be regularised leaving 08 persons who had not completed the requisite period. 3. According to the appellants, since the writ petitioner was appointed in the year 1996, he had not completed the seven years when Govt. Order No. 144-GAD of 2001, dated 02.02.2001. The writ petitioner on earlier occasion approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing SWP No. 1364/1998 along with 40 others seeking regularisation. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellants to take steps to regularise the services of 41 writ petitioners including the writ petitioner herein by following the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130 (State of Haryana v. Piara Singh) within a period of three months with further direction to consider the claim of the monetary benefits and same shall be settled within a period of three months, otherwise they would be entitled to get interest @ 12%. The said order having not been complied with, the contempt petition bearing COA (SW) No. 284/1998 was preferred, which was disposed of on 20.10.1999, taking note of the Govt. Order issued on 28.09.1999 stating that on completion of seven years of continuous service of the contempt petitioners, their names for regularisation will be considered. The said order having not been complied with, the contempt petition bearing COA (SW) No. 284/1998 was preferred, which was disposed of on 20.10.1999, taking note of the Govt. Order issued on 28.09.1999 stating that on completion of seven years of continuous service of the contempt petitioners, their names for regularisation will be considered. It is also stated that the daily wagers will complete 7 years of service ranging from 28.04.2000 to Nov., 2003. Taking note of the said Government order issued, the contempt petition was disposed of as infructuous by stating that if the contempt petitioners have any grievance vis-a-vis the dates of their regularisation, they can challenge the same in forums available to them and the writ petitioner was allowed to continue. In spite of the issuance of said Govt. Order No.144-GAD of 2001, dated 02.02.2001, the writ petitioner was allowed to continue and he is still continuing as daily wager i.e. for about 20 years. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent herein asserted that from 1996 to till date, writ petitioner is continuously working and is getting daily wage salary. The said fact was directed to be verified. Learned counsel for the appellants, verified the same by getting instructions. Learned counsel fairly submits that the writ petitioner-respondent herein is continuously working as Daily Wager since 1996 till date. In terms of the earlier Government order, the writ petitioner has completed seven years of service by August, 2003 and as per the earlier Government order, the writ petitioner's service was to be regularised on completion of seven years of service with all time-scale and other benefits accrued to him. 5. The regularisation of persons appointed till 06.11.2001 from the date of completion of seven years of service from their initial appointment was ordered by the government pursuant to the Cabinet Decision dated 10.09.2001 through Govt. Order No.1285-GAD of 2001, dated 06.11.2001. 5. The regularisation of persons appointed till 06.11.2001 from the date of completion of seven years of service from their initial appointment was ordered by the government pursuant to the Cabinet Decision dated 10.09.2001 through Govt. Order No.1285-GAD of 2001, dated 06.11.2001. The said order states that all adhoc appointees to non-gazetted posts recruited from time to time beyond 29.12.1988 till the date of issue of the order, who are still in service be considered for regularisation after completing seven years of continuous service from the date of appointment dispensing with reference of posts held by them to Service Selection Board subject to the conditions that he/she is a permanent resident of J&K State, on the date of his/her initial appointment his/her age was within the minimum and maximum age limit as prescribed for appointment in government service, possesses the prescribed academic and/or technical qualification, not a retiree from any State or Central Government service or any local body, public sector undertaking and the work and conduct has remained satisfactory during the period he/she worked as ad hoc appointee and no disciplinary proceedings or vigilance case is pending. In this case, as already stated the respondent was engaged as daily wager in August, 1996 and his claim was already accepted by this Court and the Govt, assured before this Court in contempt petition to regularise on completion of 7 years. 6. Thus, there is no merit in appeal, the same is dismissed with a direction to appellants to implement order of Writ Court dated 26.11.2009 within a period of one month with all consequential benefits. While calculating the monetary benefits payable to the respondent, the salary already paid on daily wage basis to him shall also be adjusted. No costs.