Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 82 (JK)

MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL DAR v. STATE OF J&K

2025-03-01

SANJAY DHAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1) The petitioners have filed SWP No.1450/2018 challenging order dated 08.02.2018 issued by respondent No.1, whereby their claim for re-engagement as casual labourers has been rejected. They have also sought a direction upon the respondents to treat them at par with similarly circumstanced persons who have been engaged along with the petitioners but have been allowed to continue. 2) It seems that an interim order dated 06.07.2018 came to be issued by this Court whereby the respondents were asked to consider the claim of the petitioners afresh. Pursuant to said interim direction, another consideration order dated 04.09.2018 came to be issued by the respondents whereby claim of the petitioners has again been considered and rejected. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners by way of another writ petition bearing WP(C) No.679/2021. The facts and the grounds of challenge in both the writ petitions are same and, as such, both the writ petitions are taken up together for their decision. 3) As per case of the petitioners, they were engaged as casual labourers by the respondents in the year 1998. It has been contended that the petitioners approached this Court by way of writ petition bearing SWP No.2757/2015 against their indiscriminate and arbitrary disengagement. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 27.04.2017, whereby a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for re- engagement as casual labourers if there is any need. It has been further contended that the petitioners again invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court by way of SWP No.2005/2017 after they had obtained certain important documents through RTI. In the said writ petition, the petitioners had sought a relief that the respondents should treat them at par with similarly situated persons who have been included in the consolidated list of casual labourers prepared by the respondents. The petitioners had also sought a direction that they should be given the benefit of Cabinet Decision No.99/2007/014 dated 03.06.2014. In the said writ petition, the petitioners had sought a relief that the respondents should treat them at par with similarly situated persons who have been included in the consolidated list of casual labourers prepared by the respondents. The petitioners had also sought a direction that they should be given the benefit of Cabinet Decision No.99/2007/014 dated 03.06.2014. The aforesaid writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 04.10.2017, whereby the petitioners were given liberty to make a detailed representation to the respondents ventilating their grievances and the respondents were directed to accord consideration to the same in the light of the aforesaid Cabinet Decision and in accordance with the applicable rules and eligibility criteria. 4) When the respondents did not accord consideration to the claim of the petitioners, they were forced to file a contempt petition. During the proceedings in the contempt petition, it was brought to the notice of the petitioners that their claim had been rejected by the respondents in terms of impugned order dated 08.02.2018. 5) The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order dated 08.02.2018 as also the consideration order dated 04.09.2018, which are similar in nature, on the grounds that the respondents on the one hand claim that the petitioners have been disengaged in the year 2001 but on the other admit that they were working upto the year 2006. This, according to the petitioners, shows non-application of mind on the part of the respondents. It has been contended that the casual labourers engaged along with the petitioners right from the year 1998 are still continuing and for this reason, the stand of the respondents that they have disbanded engagement of the casual labourers is falsified. It has been claimed that at present 112 casual labourers are working with the respondents and some of these casual labourers have been engaged after the engagement of the petitioners. It has also been contended that the impugned consideration orders have the effect of depriving the petitioners from the benefit of policy of regularization formulated by the government. 6) The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition in which they have claimed that the petitioners have filed successive writ petitions before this Court on the same issue, which is impermissible in law. 6) The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition in which they have claimed that the petitioners have filed successive writ petitions before this Court on the same issue, which is impermissible in law. It has been claimed that in the year 2001, the Government issued order No.144-GAD of 2001 dated 02.02.2001 whereby all the casual labourers were disengaged and the petitioners were amongst them and, as such, they stand disengaged in the year 2001. It has been further submitted that the petitioners entered a temporary employment on need basis and their engagement was not based on any criteria or process in accordance with rules and, as such, they cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation. It has been further contended that the State has not held out any promise while engaging the petitioners. 7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the case as also the record produced by the respondents. 8) It seems that during the pendency of the case, an interim order came to be passed by this Court on 15.09.2023, wherein it was noted that as per the supplementary affidavit dated 05.06.2023 filed by the petitioners, petitioner Mohammad Maqbool Dar has worked upto March, 2006, and similarly petitioner Rayees Ahmad has worked upto September, 2006, whereas other petitioners have worked upto the year 2001. It was observed that in view of this position, the stand of the respondents that the petitioners were disengaged in the year 2001 is falsified and, accordingly, the respondents were directed to produce the record. 9) Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the record has been produced by the respondents. From a perusal of the record, it appears that petitioner Mohammad Maqbool Dar has worked upto March, 2006, petitioner S. Ichpal Singh has worked upto January, 2001, petitioner Javaid Ahmad Dar has worked upto January, 2001, petitioner Rayees Ahmad has worked upto September, 2006, and petitioner Gulzar Ahmad Lone has worked upto November, 2001. Thus, at least two petitioners have worked even after the year 2001, thereby falsifying the stand of the respondents that all the petitioners were disengaged in the year 2001. 10) The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the contradictory stands taken by the respondents with regard to date of disengagement of the petitioners makes any difference to the case at hand. 10) The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the contradictory stands taken by the respondents with regard to date of disengagement of the petitioners makes any difference to the case at hand. 11) It is not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged as need based casual labourers by the respondents and they have not been working with the respondents, at least after the year 2006. The petitioners after their disengagement slept over the matter and agitated the action of their disengagement by the respondents only in the year 2015 i.e. at least after nine years of their disengagement. This Court passed a consideration order in favour of the petitioners and thereafter they again moved another writ petition in the year 2017 and a similar order came to be passed by this Court. Mere passing of consideration order without adverting to the merits of the case of the petitioners does not revive a stale claim of a litigant. I am supported in my aforesaid view by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C. Jacob vs. Director Geology and Mining and another, (2008) 10 SCC 115 . 12) The petitioners in the instant case have slept over their rights, if at all the same were available to them, for more than nine years and then they have taken a belated resort to the writ jurisdiction of this Court without explaining as to why they did not approach this Court during these nine years. This conduct of the petitioners shows that they have acquiesced in the action of the respondents whereby they were disengaged from service. The petitioners cannot now file successive writ petitions challenging the said action of the respondents. The writ petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 13) Even on merits, the petitioners do not have a case in their favour. The engagement of the petitioners, admittedly, was on need basis. Therefore, the respondents cannot be compelled to continue their services even when they do not need the same. A need based worker has no legally enforceable right to continue in service once the employer decides that his services are not needed. No enforceable right has accrued in favour of the petitioners to continue as casual labourers with the respondents in view of the conditions attached to their engagement. A need based worker has no legally enforceable right to continue in service once the employer decides that his services are not needed. No enforceable right has accrued in favour of the petitioners to continue as casual labourers with the respondents in view of the conditions attached to their engagement. In these circumstances, the disengagement of the petitioners by the respondents appears to be in accordance with law. 14) The Supreme Court in the case of Secretary of State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others , AIR 2006 SC 1806 , has held that when a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. It has been held that such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed or for being continued. The Supreme Court went on to hold that in such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. 15) In the face of aforesaid legal position, the fact that the petitioners were engaged only on casual basis does not entitle them to continue in similar arrangement once the respondents do not have any requirement for their services. Thus, the impugned consideration orders passed by the respondents do not deserve any interference by this Court. 16) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. The same are dismissed accordingly, interim direction(s), if any, shall stand vacated. 17) The record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.