Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 631 (JK)

Maniza Begum v. State

2017-08-14

B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner, who was engaged as Safaiwala on contingency basis vide order Annexure A dated 19.09.2009 issued by Zonal Education Officer, Bufliaz, has filed the instant writ petition claiming that he has not been made payment till date and even otherwise, it is impossible to survive on a meagre amount of Rs.200 per month, therefore, he is entitled to be absorbed on permanent basis in available vacant post in terms of SRO 308 of 2008. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petition was filed on 16.04.2010 i.e. prior to the alleged date of termination and that till date, no order of termination has been served on the petitioner and that the petitioner continues to work as a contingent Safaiwala in terms of Order Annexure A dated 19.09.2009. 3. Per contra, Mr. Rohit Kapoor learned AAG by referring to paragraph No. 3 of the objections has contended that the petitioner worked as Safaiwala in the School on contingency basis vide order dated 19.09.2009 issued by ZEO Buffliaz and on a permanent Safaiwala being transferred and posted by the competent authority, the services of the petitioner were terminated. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that in the light of disputed questions of fact, it would not be possible for this Court to go into the claim made in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Chief Education Officer Poonch to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable and the factual position in the light of order dated 19.04.2010 passed by this Court. 5. At this stage, learned AAG contends that the Chief Education Officer, Poonch is not the competent authority and it is the Commissioner/Secretary, School Education who is the competent authority. Be as it may, let the claim of the petitioner be placed before the competent authority i.e. Commissioner/Secretary, School Education by the respondents for taking a decision with regard to the claim as is made in the instant writ petition in the light of the factual position and the rules and regulations applicable. Be as it may, let the claim of the petitioner be placed before the competent authority i.e. Commissioner/Secretary, School Education by the respondents for taking a decision with regard to the claim as is made in the instant writ petition in the light of the factual position and the rules and regulations applicable. Needless to mention, it would be open to the competent authority to take into account not only the stand of the official respondents taken in the objections filed, but also various decisions of this Court rendered in SWP No. 1177/2008, SWP No. 1301/2004, SWP No. 721/2016, LPASW No. 179/2000 and LPASW No. 81/2006, provided the same are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6. With the aforementioned directions, writ petition is disposed of.