Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 560 (JK)

Ab Hamid Matoo v. State of JK

2018-07-25

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners claim continuation as Casual Labourers with further relief of directing the respondents to release their legitimately earned wages as also to process their cases for regularization in tune with the mandate of rules/policy of the Government. 2. The petitioners submit that they have been working as Casual Labourers in the respondent Department for a long number of years and are continuing as such. Further, the petitioners, in support of their claim, have placed reliance on the pleadings placed on record with the writ petition. 3. The respondents, on notice, have filed their reply resisting the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the services of the petitioners were only extracted as labourers on need basis during the execution of developmental works, for which they have been paid the wages alongwith other such labourers, which does not confer them any right for seeking uploading of their particulars in the ‘Aadhar Based Biometric Identification and Skill Profiling of CSLWs’ as per the instructions of Circular No. 01-F of 2017 dated 31st of March, 2017, issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir through the Finance Department. The relevant extract of the Government instructions are taken note of: “Such workers as have not been paid wages for the claimed period of service, do not constitute any category for the purpose of identification and skill profiling, and as such shall not be enlisted. Similarly, only such seasonal labourers/workers shall be listed as have been engaged in any Department for a clearly defined working season/definite period of time or period of a year and paid as such continuously for a number of years.” In light of the above instructions, it is further submitted by the respondents that the petitioners have neither worked for an indefinite period nor have they been paid wages continuously for a number of years, rather the services of the petitioners were only extracted on seasonal basis, therefore, the petitioners are not eligible for the relief prayed for in the writ petition. Respondents have also denied the continuation of the petitioners as Casual Labourers and have stated, at paragraph No.8 of the reply, that the petitioners have forged the communication No. 283/ROQ dated 9th of August, 2017 of Range Officer, Social Forestry, Range Qazigund (annexed with the writ petition as page No. 16), as such, are, as per the respondents, liable to criminal action as per law. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant writ petition for the reliefs claim on the ground that the writ petition involves disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated before a Writ Court. It is submitted that the petitioners are not continuing as Casual Labourers in the respondent Department, as such, there is neither any question of their continuation in the Department and payment of wages in respect thereto nor are the petitioners entitled for uploading their particulars in the ‘Aadhar Based Biometric Identification and Skill Profiling of CSLWs’. In this view of the matter, the respondents seek dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Mr Furrahi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, could not convince the Court as regards there being any concrete evidence in the shape of orders issued by the respondents regarding the continuation of the petitioners as continuous Casual Labouers in the respondent Department. The documents placed on record with the writ petition are also disputed by the respondents. 7. Law on the subject of exercising powers and jurisdiction by a Writ Court in disputed matters is well settled. Once the claim of the petitioners is disputed in a writ petition by the Government, there is hardly any scope left to the Writ Court to go for a fact-finding mission for ascertaining the veracity of the rival claims and proceed in the matter for further adjudication, which, in fact, may amount to converting the Writ jurisdiction of the Court into civil jurisdiction. There is no question of adducing/proving evidence in a writ petition. May be the petitioners have a case for seeking declaration with reference to their working in the respondent Department and their continuation as such, but that is only available to them in a civil Court and not before a Writ Court. 8. There is no question of adducing/proving evidence in a writ petition. May be the petitioners have a case for seeking declaration with reference to their working in the respondent Department and their continuation as such, but that is only available to them in a civil Court and not before a Writ Court. 8. In the above background, I am of the view that the petition of the petitioners does not have any merit. It entails dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected MP(s). Interim directions, if any, in force as on date, shall stand vacated. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for the determination and enforcement of their rights as claimed herein this petition, as may be available to them under law.