0

Extension of benefit of regularization incorrectly to any employee would not entitle the other employees to the same benefit: High Court of J&K and Ladakh

Extension of benefit of regularization incorrectly to any employee would not entitle the petitioner-appellant to the same benefit until and unless the petitioner-appellant is able to make out a case for regularization in terms of J&K Daily Rated Workers Employees (Regularization) Rules, 1994(SRO 64 of 1994) as held by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K through a learned bench of The Chief Justice and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul in the case of Bashir Ahmad Dar Vs State of JK & Ors [LPAOW No. 123/2018].

The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner was allegedly appointed as a daily-wager in the Agriculture Department sometime in the year 1986. On completion of seven years of continuous service, he claimed regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. Since his case was not considered for regularization, he preferred SWP No. 624/1995, but the said writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner. In pursuance to the above direction, the case of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated and petitioner challenged the above rejection order by filing SWP No. 297/2002 which came to be disposed of with the direction to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner. Since as per the above direction, the case of the petitioner-appellant was not considered afresh, the petitioner initiated proceedings for contempt by filing a contempt and the contempt proceedings were closed on 12th March 2009 giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid consideration order. The respondent department reconsidered the matter and refused to regularize the services of the petitioner-appellant on the ground that he is not eligible for regularization under the aforesaid SRO 64 of 1994.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant is that the learned Single Judge manifestly erred in law in dismissing the writ petition when similar other petitions were allowed, the petitioner was entitled to the same benefit as was extended to other employees and, as such, the court erred in relegating the petitioner to file civil suit as the matter involves disputed questions of law.

After a perusal of the facts on the record, the Hon’ble High Court was of the view that “all findings of fact and the learned Single Judge is right in observing that the writ court cannot go into those fact-finding mission so as to verify their veracity or the genuineness by making a roving enquiry. The argument that few other employees have been extended the benefit of regularization is completely misconceived inasmuch as they may be similarly situated, but their regularization appears to have been ordered on being satisfied that they have completed seven years of continuous service which fact is lacking in the present case. The department upon verification of the aforesaid fact alone ordered for their regularization pursuant to the direction of the court. Moreover, extension of benefit of regularization incorrectly to any employee would not entitle the petitioner-appellant to the same benefit until and unless the petitioner-appellant is able to make out a case for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat