Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 497 (JK)

Shabir Ahmad Khan v. State of J&K

2016-09-30

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : N. PAUL VASANTHA KUMAR, J. 1. Through the medium of this application, the applicants seek the same treatment as has been given to similarly placed persons in terms of the judgment of this Court passed in SWP No. 812/2008 dated 22.04.2011 affirmed in LPA No. 202/2011 dated 06.08.2015. Case of the petitioners in the main writ petition is that they are the Ex-employees of the Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Consumer Federation Limited (in short federal ion) which was wounded up due to financial crisis in the year 1999. The Government while resolving to wind up the Federation as reflected in Cabinet Decision dated 15.07.1999, decided to adjust its employees including the petitioners against the suitable posts in the Government Department. Faced with the difficulties to adjust all the employees of the Federation in the Government Department, the Government in 2002 conceived Golden Handshake Scheme (in short GHS) so as to give an option to the employees, not too keen to be adjusted in the Government Department, to take home the benefits made available in terms of the GHS and pursue a professional/trade of their choice. It was also resolved to implemented the Cabinet decision dated 15.07.1999 in respect of employees not willing to avail the GHS. The petitioners did not opt for the GHS and chose to be adjusted in some Government Department. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners in the writ petition that they have not been adjusted in the Cooperative Department against the posts commensurate with the grade held by them in the wound up Federation. It is further stated that they are aggrieved of non-releasing and non-payment of the arrears w.e.f. 08/1999 to 26.10.2007 and the services rendered by them in the Federation are also stated not to have been counted in continuation to the services rendered by them in the Cooperative Department. The petitioners also complained that they were neither being considered for grant of time bound promotion nor were their pensionary benefits being protected by the respondents by issuing appropriate orders. 3. Through the medium of this application, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the same treatment may be given to the applicants as has been given to similarly placed persons in terms of the judgment of this Court passed in SWP No. 812/2008 dated 22.04.2011 affirmed in LPA No. 202/2011 dated 06.08.2015. 4. 3. Through the medium of this application, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the same treatment may be given to the applicants as has been given to similarly placed persons in terms of the judgment of this Court passed in SWP No. 812/2008 dated 22.04.2011 affirmed in LPA No. 202/2011 dated 06.08.2015. 4. In the objections filed by the respondents in the writ petition, it is stated that the present writ petition is similar and identical to SWP No. 812/2008. The averments made under both the service writ petitions are identical in nature and the petitioners have made similar prayer in both the petitions. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents further states that an appeal bearing LPA No. 202/2011 was preferred against the Writ Court order 22.04.2011 made in SWP No. 812/2008. The said LP appeal was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 06.08.2015. The respondents preferred SLP against the said Division Bench order bearing SLP No. 17801/2016 and the said SLP was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 26.09.2016. 6. In light of the said stand taken by the respondents that applicants case is similar to SWP No. 812/2008 and the said writ petition having been allowed, affirmed in LP appeal and SLP having been dismissed, this application is also ordered in terms of the order made in SWP No. 812/2008 dated 22.04.2011 affirmed in LPA No. 202/2011 dated 06.08.2015. This application along-with main writ petition is disposed of. No costs.