Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 697 (JK)

Mohd. Hanif Sohail v. State of J&K

2017-08-21

TASHI RABSTAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of order dated 01.06.1994, he was engaged as part time Safaiwala at S/C Serbagni, subsequently, his engagement is being extended from time to time. Even Block Medical Officer, vide his communication dated 21.12.2009 has certified that the work and conduct of the petitioner remained satisfactory and the remuneration of the petitioner is Rs. 100/- per month. In terms of order dated 10.11.2014, the petitioner was also deputed to perform IPPI duties at IPPI Booth, in addition to his routine duties. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that despite continuing on the post of Safaiwala for the last 24 years, neither, the respondents have considered his case for regularization nor the petitioner has been granted minimum wages. It is also contended that some of the similarly situated persons had approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing No. 966/2003 titled Hashim Din and ors. Vs. State of J&K and ors., and the said petition came to be allowed by this Court. Subsequently, when the judgment passed by this Court was not implemented, the petitioners therein filed a contempt petition as well. Finally, by virtue of Government Order No. 223-HME of 2007 dated 30.03.2007, official respondents regularized the services of petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition. It is also contended that despite performing his duties to the entire satisfaction of his superiors, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services and payment of minimum wages in terms of the Minimum Wages Act, which constrained him to file the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in an another writ petition SWP No. 1318/2010, vide order dated 17.09.2013 has directed the respondents to pay minimum wages to the petitioner therein and also consider his case for regularization. 4. Writ petition came to be filed on 04.03.2010 and notice came to be issued on 18.03.2010. However, despite lapse of seven years, the respondents have not filed objections to this writ petition. Therefore, it is presumed that the respondents are admitting the contentions of the petitioner. 5. 4. Writ petition came to be filed on 04.03.2010 and notice came to be issued on 18.03.2010. However, despite lapse of seven years, the respondents have not filed objections to this writ petition. Therefore, it is presumed that the respondents are admitting the contentions of the petitioner. 5. In the given circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay minimum wages to the petitioner as are being paid to the daily rated workers and accord consideration to his regularization having regard to the averments made in the petition, annexures appended thereto and the rules governing the matter. 6. While according consideration, the respondents shall also taken into consideration the judgment/order passed in SWP No. 966/2003 titled Hashim Din and ors. Vs. State of J&K and ors., and SWP No. 1318/2010 decided on 17.09.2013. The respondents shall take a decision and pass consideration order in the matter within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this order along with complete set of writ petition as well as copies of judgments referred to above are made available to them. 7. Disposed of as above along with connected miscellaneous petitions.