Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 539 (JK)

Mohammad Ashraf Bhat v. State of JK

2018-07-19

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. By the medium of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the consideration orders passed in respect of each petitioner, all dated 4th of May, 2017, issued by the Director, Airport Authority of India, Srinagar/ respondent No.4 herein, whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services as Porters has been rejected. 2. The facts germane in arriving at a decision in the instant petition, briefly and as stated by the petitioners in their petition, is that the petitioners claim to be working, on contractual basis, as labourers with the respondents for more than a decade. It is stated that despite the fact that the petitioners gave their youth to the respondent department and that similarly placed persons were given the benefit of regularization of their services in the respondent Department who, as a matter of fact, were much juniors to the petitioners, yet the petitioners were subjected to invidious discrimination at the hands of the respondents inasmuch as their case for regularization was not considered by the respondents for reasons best known to them. This approach adopted by the respondents constrained the petitioners to file a writ petition before this Court, being SWP No.398/2014. In the said writ petition, this Court, on consideration of the matter and in terms of final order dated 5th of April, 2016, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services on the same analogy as has been adopted in the case of other similarly situated persons/ respondent Nos. 4 to 15 in that petition. Being aggrieved of the said judgment passed by this Court in SWP No.398/2014 filed by the petitioners, the respondents assailed the same before the Division Bench of this Court by medium of a Letters Patent Appeal, being LPA No. 102/2016. The Division Bench of this Court, while taking an overall view of the matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in terms of judgment dated 1st of June, 2016, dismissed the said appeal filed by the respondents, by holding as under: “7. ……..In such circumstances, we are unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of the writ Court. The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. ……..In such circumstances, we are unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of the writ Court. The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.” Thereafter, the respondents have issued various consideration orders, all dated 4th of May, 2017, that are impugned herein this petition, whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services in the respondent Department has been rejected by the respondents. 3. Mr Jan, the learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the rights of the petitioners have already been determined by the judgment of this Court dated 5th of April, 2016 passed in SWP No.398/2014 filed by the petitioners, earlier in point of time. The learned Senior counsel further states that this judgment, after being upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 1st of June, 2016, has attained finality and was, therefore, required to be implemented by the respondents in its letter and spirit, however, the respondents, without any reason whatsoever, much less a cogent one, have, in gross violation of the same, rejected the claim of the petitioners by passing the impugned orders. Mr Jan, the learned Senior counsel, has further proceeded to state that the grounds, which formed the baseline of the rejection of the claim of the petitioners, have already been dealt with and annulled by this Court in terms of judgment dated 5th of April, 2016, passed in SWP No.398/2014 filed by the petitioners, as the petitioners were rendering their services as Porters in the respondent Department in tune with other similarly situated employees, who already stand regularized in the respondent Department. The ground of dissimilarity of the case of the petitioners with that of the respondent Nos. 4 to 15 in SWP No.398/2014, as per the learned senior Counsel, has already been turned down by this Court in its decision dated 5th of April, 2016 in SWP No.398/2014 filed by the petitioners. 4. Mr Anil Bhan, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, submits that the petitioners were working as Porters in the respondent Department on outsource basis, therefore, were not similarly situated with respondent Nos. 4 to 15 in SWP No.398/2014. This submission, however, was also made by the respondents in SWP No.398/2014 as also before the Division Bench, which stands already rejected by this Court. 5. 2 to 4, submits that the petitioners were working as Porters in the respondent Department on outsource basis, therefore, were not similarly situated with respondent Nos. 4 to 15 in SWP No.398/2014. This submission, however, was also made by the respondents in SWP No.398/2014 as also before the Division Bench, which stands already rejected by this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. 6. From a bare perusal of the impugned orders, what comes to the fore is that the respondents, while rejecting the claim of the petitioners, have raised the same grounds which have already been turned down by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, being SWP No.398/2014, as upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. The decision so arrived by the respondents, besides being in gross violation of the directions of this Court, is based on no material. The observations passed by this Court, which stand upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, have been violated with impunity by the respondents. The respondents have not accorded consideration to the case of the petitioners in tune with the directions passed by this Court. They have given the benefit of regularization of services to the similarly circumstances persons (being respondent Nos. 4 to 15 in SWP No.398/2014) as that of the petitioners and have subjected the petitioners to invidious discrimination, which amounts to ‘anathema’ to the ‘Right of Equality’ enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. Once the Court, on the basis of the pleadings on record and after hearing the rival parties, comes to a particular conclusion and same stands upheld by the Division Bench, the respondents are obliged under law to adhere to the findings/directions recorded in such a conclusion. It is not open to the respondents to sit in appeal against a judgment of this Court and, in order to delay the implementation of the judgment of this Court, once again, raise those grounds which have already been rejected by this Court. It is not open to the respondents to sit in appeal against a judgment of this Court and, in order to delay the implementation of the judgment of this Court, once again, raise those grounds which have already been rejected by this Court. This approach adopted by the respondents is contemptuous, however, while taking a lenient view, this Court, with a view to give the respondents one more opportunity to comply with the terms of the directions of the Court passed in the matter, earlier in point of time and, subsequently, upheld by the Division Bench, is, at this stage, not inclined to initiate suo moto proceedings against the respondents for violation of the directions of the Court. 8. In the above factual background, the petition of the petitioners is allowed, as a consequence of which, the orders impugned dated 4th of May, 2017, are quashed and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners in the respondent Department strictly in tune with the directions passed by this Court dated 5th of April, 2014, passed in SWP No. 398/2014, as upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No.102/2016, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. Writ petition, alongwith connected MPs, disposed of as above.