Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 424 (JK)

Bilal Ahmad Shah v. State of J&K

2019-09-23

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. CM No.3444/2019: Mr. Sheikh Hilal, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Irfan Andleeb, Dy. AG for the non-applicants/respondents. 1. By this motion, the applicant/petitioner is seeking a direction in the name of the respondents directing them to release the legitimately earned wages in his favour for the services rendered or to be rendered by him in the respondent Department. 2. Having gone through the averments made in the application, coupled with a perusal of the main writ petition, it is thought just and proper to take on board the main writ petition for final disposal. Accordingly, the main writ petition is, with the consensus of the learned counsel for the parties, taken on board for final disposal, infra. SWP No. 2186/2018; IA No. 01/2018: Appearance as above. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has craved the indulgence of this Court in granting him the following reliefs; “In the premises, it is therefore prayed this writ petition may be allowed and the respondent no.2 be directed to include the petitioner in final list of casual labours on the basis of the report submitted by respondent no.3, further be directed to release the earned wages to the petitioner for service rendered by him or to be rendered in future and also consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization as and when such policy is framed.” 4. The case of the petitioner, as projected in this petition, is that he is working as a Casual Labour in the respondent Department since the year 2009. It is stated that the respondents framed a list of Casual Labours, 645 in number, including the petitioner herein, in terms whereof the case of these Casual Labours was submitted to the higher authorities for regularization of their services in the respondent Department. It is further stated that, subsequently, the case of the petitioner was withheld on account of authentication/ verification and not included in the final list framed by the respondents. It is further stated that, subsequently, the case of the petitioner was withheld on account of authentication/ verification and not included in the final list framed by the respondents. It is pleaded that the petitioner approached the respondents for enlisting him in the final list resulting in issuance of communication bearing No. PHE/MCS/113-14 dated 24th of November, 2014, whereby the respondent No.3, while forwarding the list of left out need based Casual Labours to the respondent No.2, intimated to the said authority that the verification/ authentication has been done by the concerned Committee with regard to other left out Casual Labours, including the petitioner. The respondent No.2, in turn, vide communication dated 17th of December, 2014, advised the respondent No.3 that the said recommendation needs to be verified by all the members of the Committee concerned. In response to the said communication, the respondent No.3, in terms of communication dated 16th of March, 2015, submitted the list of left out need based Casual Labours whose authentication/ verification was done by the members of the Committee. The petitioner pleads that despite the recommendations of the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 intimating therein that the verification/ authentication has been duly done by all the members of the Committee concerned with regard to the case of the left out need based Casual Labours, including the petitioner, the respondent No.2 did not include the petitioner in the final list and also did not release the legitimately earned wages in favour of the petitioner, constraining the petitioner to file the instant writ petition. 5. Reply stands filed on behalf of the respondents, resisting and controverting the averments made in the petition of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is working as a Casual Labour in the Department, but he did not present himself and remained unavailable before the Empowered Committee at the time of screening of the Casual Labours undertaken by the Department, as such, could not be enlisted in the final list of Casual Labours. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 7. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 7. A perusal of the documents placed on record by the petitioner, alongwith the writ petition, as well as the reply filed by the respondents reveals that in an earlier round of litigation, 15 out of the 21 Casual Labours who were left out from the final list of Casual Labours, approached this Court through the medium of SWP No.2154/2015 for seeking the same relief of their enlistment in the final list of Casual Labours, as is being sought by the petitioner herein, and this Court, vide judgment dated 7th of May, 2016, directed the respondent No.2 to include the petitioners therein in the final list of Casual Labours on the basis of report submitted by the respondent No.3. It was also provided in the said judgment that the respondents shall release the legitimately earned wages in favour of the petitioners therein for the services rendered or to be rendered by them, as were being paid to the other similarly situated Casual Labours. The respondents have, in their reply, admitted that they, in compliance of the aforesaid directions passed by this Court, included the 15 Casual Labours (petitioners in SWP No. 2154/2015) in the final list of Casual Labours, however, with regard to the case of other 06 Casual Labours, including the petitioner herein, no directions have been received from the competent authority. 8. Admittedly, the only practical difficulty faced by the respondents in not enlisting the petitioner in the final list of Casual Labours is the factum of petitioner having failed to appear before the Screening Committee constituted for the said purpose. The same ground was adopted by the respondents in not enlisting the 15 left out Casual Labours who approached this Court through the medium of SWP No. 2154/2015 and in whose case this Court directed the respondents to include those 15 Casual Labours in the final list of Casual Labours on the basis of report submitted by the respondent No.3. This very plea has been taken by the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for his enlistment in the final list of Casual Labours, even though the respondent No.3 has forwarded the report to the respondent No.2 with regard to the cases of all left out Casual Labours, including the petitioner herein. This very plea has been taken by the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for his enlistment in the final list of Casual Labours, even though the respondent No.3 has forwarded the report to the respondent No.2 with regard to the cases of all left out Casual Labours, including the petitioner herein. It is, thus, clear that the case of the petitioner herein is similarly situated to that of the other 15 Casual Labours, viz. petitioners in SWP No. 2354/2015, who, in compliance of the directions passed by this Court, stand enlisted in the final list of Casual Labours by the respondents. 9. In the above factual background, coupled with the similarity of the case of the petitioner with those of the petitioners in SWP No. 2154/2015, the instant petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No.2 to include the petitioner in the final list of Casual Labours on the basis of report submitted by the respondent No.3. The respondents shall also release the legitimately earned wages in favour of the petitioner for the services rendered or to be rendered by him in the respondent Department, as are being paid to the other similarly situated enlisted Casual Labours. 10. Writ petition disposed of as above, alongwith the connected CM(s).