Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 112 (JK)

Manzoor Ahmed v. State of J&K

2018-02-27

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Notice. Mr. R. S. Jamwal, learned Dy.AG accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Going by the nature of relief sought for and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is admitted to hearing and same is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioners in the present writ petition seek following relief:- “(i) to include the name of the petitioner in the list of casual labourers/daily wagers which has been sought by the General Administration Department for regularizing the services of the casual labourers/daily wagers/need basis workers in the light of the SRO No. 520 of 2017 dated 21.12.2017. (ii) to regularize the services of the petitioner under SRO No. 520 of 2017 dated 21.12.2017 with all consequential service benefits from the date the petitioner was entitled to be regularized. (iii) to release the wages from 2009 till date.” 4. The petitioner came to be appointed as Daily Wager/casual labourer in the Public Health Engineering Division Bhaderwah in the year 1992 (Annexure-A) and has been paid his wages till ending 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that vide letter No. PHEB/200 dated 02.08.2008, respondent No. 4 Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Doda was requested by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PHE Sub-Division Bhaderwah to include the name of the petitioner in the verification list for regularization of his services, but the fate of the said verification list is not known till date. It is stated that again respondent No. 1 has sought from the respondent No. 4- Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Doda to furnish the list of the casual labourers/daily wagers like that of the petitioner, but respondent No. 4 is not forwarding the name of the petitioner for verification, on the basis of which the services of the petitioner have to be regularized under SRO 520 dated 21.12.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has made so many representations to the respondents seeking release of the wages and inclusion of his name in the list for regularization under SRO b520 dated 21.12.2017, but the same have not been accorded consideration. Copies of the said representations have not been placed on record. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents’ states that claims of the petitioner will be considered by the Authority, as may be directed by this Court. 7. Copies of the said representations have not been placed on record. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents’ states that claims of the petitioner will be considered by the Authority, as may be directed by this Court. 7. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the competent authority. On such representation being filed, the competent authority shall accord consideration and dispose of the same on its own merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of six to eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation alongwith copy of this order. 8. Claim of the petitioner for release of wages be also consider. 9. The writ petition alongwith connected MP stands disposed of in the above terms.