Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 338 (JK)

Shamim Akhter v. State

2017-07-17

B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner claims to have been engaged as casual labourer in the year 1990 where-after orders dated 27.08.1990, 29.11.1990, 26.09.1991, 06.10.1993, 01.06.1994 & 01.05.1996 collectively attached as Annexure A were passed by respondent No.3 from time to time extending the engagement of the petitioner. Initially, the petitioner was engaged against Rs.540/- per month which was increased from time to time and at the time of filing of writ petition, remuneration was stated to be Rs.3100/- per month. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the payment was not being made to her w.e.f. 1996 despite the fact that the work was being elicited from the petitioner. In support of the plea that the petitioner was continuously working, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to orders dated 08.08.2000, 17.04.2001, 18.12.2002 and 12.08.2007 collectively attached as Annexure B in which the petitioner including other similarly situated daily rated workers have been shown as having been engaged by respondent No.3. 3. Learned counsel states that although the respondents have regularized the services of number of daily rated workers who had been engaged much later than the engagement of the petitioner as daily rated worker, yet the services of the petitioner have not been regularized. On the basis of the same, learned counsel contends that perusal of order Annexure C dated 24.03.2006 reveals that most of the daily rated workers regularized in the list from Serial No.01 to 36 were engaged as daily rated workers later than the engagement of the petitioner, whereas the first order of engagement of the petitioner as daily rated worker as evident from Annexure A is dated 02.09.1990. Learned counsel contends that order Annexure C dated 24.03.2006 reveals that candidate at S.No.12 i.e Mushtaq Ahmed has been initially engaged on 28.10.1993 and was regularized w.e.f 24.02.2006, whereas the said candidate was engaged after the engagement of the petitioner and that the candidates from S.No.12 to 36, who have been regularized were much junior to the petitioner. 4. At this stage, learned counsel states that pursuant to legal notice Annexure D dated 05.04.2010, the respondents have paid the salary due to the petitioner w.e.f. 1996 till date of filling of writ petition, but they have not taken any decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner for regularization. 5. The writ petition is of the year 2010. Objections have not been filed till date. Mr. 5. The writ petition is of the year 2010. Objections have not been filed till date. Mr. Ashish Singh Kotwal learned Dy.AG states that in the circumstances, writ petition can be disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to consider and decide the legal notice Annexure D dated 05.04.2010. 6. In view of the statement of learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the position as noted above as well as rules and regulations applicable. In case, the petitioner is found fulfilling the requirements of rules and regulations for regularization, then in that eventuality, appropriate orders shall be passed regularizing the services of the petitioner w.e.f the date of her entitlement. Needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. With the aforementioned directions, writ petition is disposed of.