Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mohd. Akbar And Others vs State Of J&K And Others on 23 March, 2021
Sr. No. 214
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case: LPA No. 32 of 2019
Mohd. Akbar and others ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Smt. Monika Kohli, Advocate.
v/s
State of J&K and others .... Respondent(s)
Through: Sh. D. C. Raina, Advocate General
with Sh. Vishal Bharti, Dy.AG.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
ORDER
01. Heard Smt. Monika Kohli, learned counsel for the appellants and Sh. D.
C. Raina, learned Advocate General assisted by Sh. Vishal Bharti, learned
Deputy Advocate General.
02. The appellants are in appeal against the judgment and order dated
12.12.2007 of the learned Single Judge by which Writ Petition (SWP) No.
1108 of 2015 was dismissed.
03. The petitioners/appellants in the above writ petition made following two
prayers:
„(i) Mandamus, whereby commanding the respondents to
issue engagement order in favour of the petitioners, w. e. f.
19th July, 2010 for Conflict Squad Member under Rescue
and Rehabilitation Scheme.
(ii) Mandamus, whereby commanding the respondents to
release the wages/remuneration Rs. 3700/- in favour of the
petitioner, w.e.f. 19th July 2010, i.e., from the date of their
engagement as Squad Members under the "Rescue and
Rehabilitation Scheme".‟
04. The learned counsel for the appellants urges that the appellants were
working as casual labourers and there is sufficient material to demonstrate that
they were called in for rendering services not only before 29 th July 2010 but
even after the said date.
05. It appears from the record that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir
on 17.02.2010 in order to address the problem of Wild-Animal Conflict with
human habitation and to save the animals as well as inhabitants of the villages
across the forest area decided to engage village workers as Conflict Squad
Members under the Rescue and Rehabilitation Scheme. Accordingly, a Scheme
was framed on 6th July 2010 and a proposal was submitted for engaging
certain persons of various villages in Poonch district.
06. The aforesaid Scheme even though may have been approved by the
Chief Conservator of Forests (Wild Life), Jammu; it was never given effect to.
The above Scheme was withdrawn and was revoked vide order dated
10.10.2011.
07. Some persons may have been engaged as Members of the Conflict
Squad and were paid for their duties but they were never engaged in a formal
manner by issuing any letter in their favour.
08. The learned Single Judge held that the first relief as prayed for by the
petitioners is self defeating. The petitioners wanted issuance of engagement
order in their favour with effect from 29.07.2010 on daily basis as Conflict
Squad Member under the Rescue and Rehabilitation Scheme meaning thereby
that the petitioners have not been given formal engagement earlier and since
the Scheme is no longer in existence, they are not entitled to the said relief.
09. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appellants are not
entitled to be issued any formal order of engagement.
10. The issue as to whether they have worked as Conflict Squad Members at
any point of time is also categorically denied by the respondents and a finding
in this regard appears in the order of the learned Single Judge that they have
not worked.
11. In view of the finding to this effect, the said issue, which is factual in
nature, cannot be decided by us in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction as
it is a matter of evidence.
12. The second relief claimed by the appellants in the writ petition was for a
direction to release wages/remuneration to the appellants with effect from
19th July 2010 as Conflict Squad Member.
13. The aforesaid relief has no legs to stand inasmuch as there is no material
on record to establish the engagement of the appellants as Members of the
Conflict Squad with effect from 19th July 2010 rather the first prayer in the
writ petition was to issue an engagement order meaning thereby that the
appellants were not actually engaged.
14. In view of the fact that the appellants were not engaged and were asking
for the engagement order, there is no question of releasing any
wages/remuneration to them. The learned Single Judge has returned a finding
that except for the proposal for engaging the appellants as Conflict Squad
Members, there is no material to show that they were actually engaged so as to
entitle them to wages/remuneration. The Scheme under which the appellants
were proposed to be engaged was itself cancelled on 10.10.2011.
15. The submission that the appellants under the Right to Information Act
2009 have been informed vide letter dated 22.02.2018 that services of eight
labourers as per the list were taken under the aforesaid Scheme and that the
wages were debited to their account, however, from 2015 onwards no wages
have been released. On the basis of the said information furnished, it has been
argued that the full and complete wages were not paid to the persons engaged.
16. The aforesaid information is not material as it is incomplete in nature. It
only says that eight labourers were engaged and their wages under the Scheme
with effect from 2010 and 2015 were debited. It nowhere says that they were
engaged even after 2015. However on the basis of the record it has been stated
that from 2015 onwards, wages/remuneration were not released. It may be on
account of the fact that no one was engaged as Conflict Squad Member. Non-
release of wages/remuneration after 2015 does not mean that the appellants
were engaged.
17. As already observed earlier, the factum of engagement of any person as
a Conflict Squad Member is a disputed question of fact which is beyond the
ambit of the jurisdiction of this court.
18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any
error or illegality on part of the writ court in dismissing the petition.
19. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with liberty to the appellants to
establish their claim if they so desire before the appropriate forum in
accordance with law.
(SINDHU SHARMA) (PANKAJ MITHAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
23.03.2021
Sunita
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
SUNITA KOUL
2021.03.25 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
