Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Abdullah vs Union Territory Of Jk & Ors on 16 August, 2022
Sr. No.24
Regular Cause List
IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP (C) No. 369/2020
Abdullah ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Imtiyaz Sofi, Adv.
Vs.
Union Territory of JK & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Alla-ud-din Ganai, AAG
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
16.08.2022
1. Heard Mr. Imtiyaz Sofi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr. Alla-ud-din Ganai, learned AAG appearing for the
respondents.
2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking a direction upon
the respondents to pay compensation for 6 marlas of land falling under
Khasra No. 262 at Chiterkote, Tehsil Karnah, the possession of which
was taken over in the year 1988 for the purposes of construction of a
school building. In addition to the above, the petitioner further prays
that he may be paid wages as per the daily wages fixed by the
Government from time to time and not the consolidated wages at
which he was offered appointment in lieu of the compensation for
donating his aforesaid land.
3. It appears from the record that the petitioner donated 6 marlas of his
aforesaid land for the purposes of construction of school building with
a clear understanding that one member of his family will be given
employment and that he would also be given construction work of the
school building so as to enable him to earn margin money.
4. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition SWP No. 1081/2006
seeking direction upon the respondents to appoint him in the regular
pay scale of Rs. 170-230/- on the post of Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper as
he had donated the land.
5. The aforesaid relief was sought by the petitioner for the reason that in
lieu of his aforesaid land, he was offered appointment on a
consolidated pay of Rs. 150/- per month and not the regular pay scale.
The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 12th September
2007 recording that 6 marlas of aforesaid land of the petitioner was
taken over for the construction of school building and in lieu thereof,
the respondents were obliged to either compensate the petitioner
adequately or to provide him the job as per the stated terms.
6. The court in disposing of the writ petition observed that since
petitioner has already been engaged on consolidated payment basis, he
would not be entitled to compensation, perhaps he would be entitled to
be considered for regularization. Accordingly, directions were issued
to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization against the post on which he was working on
consolidated basis.
7. The aforesaid judgment and order of this court has attained finality
and has not been disputed by anyone in any higher forum. The
petitioner having accepted the aforesaid judgment is not entitled to
any compensation as has been observed therein inasmuch as he has
accepted the employment.
8. Once the relief of compensation has been denied to the petitioner by
the aforesaid writ petition, a second writ petition for the same relief is
not maintainable.
9. It is well settled law that successive writ petitions for the same cause
of action are not maintainable.
10. In so far as the other relief that the petitioner be regularized or that he
may be directed to be paid wages as per the daily rate fixed by the
Government from time to time in place of the consolidated pay, the
said relief is also barred by principle of "constructive res-judicata" as
the matter with regard to regularization of the petitioner was
considered in the earlier writ petition and suitable directions were
issued therein which was accepted by the petitioner.
11. It appears that the respondents probably have not taken any steps
pursuant to the above direction for the purpose of regularization of the
services of the petitioner. The court had directed the respondents to
produce the record. The record so produced indicates that the services
of the petitioner could not be regularized on permanent basis since he
does not possess the requisite qualification of 8 th/Middle pass. The
certificate produced by the petitioner was duly checked and verified as
per the admission record of the school and it was found that his name
does not exist in the admission record of the school and, as such, the
certificate was found to be fake.
12. However, we do not find that any order in this regard was passed by
the competent authority and was communicated to the petitioner in
furtherance of the direction of this court contained in the judgment and
order dated 12thSeptember 2007. Therefore, we are of the opinion that
the case of the petitioner for consideration of his regularization is still
required to be considered as per the direction of this court by a
speaking order which has to be communicated to the petitioner.
13. As far as the compensation of the land is concerned, the petitioner is
not entitled to any relief as the said matter stands concluded by the
earlier judgment of the High Court more particularly when the
petitioner has accepted employment in lieu of compensation. The
petitioner was also given the contract for the construction of a school
building as per the resolution of the Village Education Committee and
was allowed to earn margin money in lieu of the land donated by him.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that
from the record that the petitioner had donated his aforesaid 6 marlas
of land for the construction of the school building in the year 1988 and
in lieu of the compensation has accepted employment, therefore, at
this stage, he is not entitled to any further compensation and the
petitioner can only seek consideration of his regularization for which
an appropriate orders have already been passed by the High Court
earlier.
15. The writ petition, as such, stands disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in
service and for release of unpaid wages strictly in accordance with law
and to pass a speaking order in terms of order dated 12th September
2007 most expeditiously preferably within a period of three months.
16. Writ petition stand disposed of.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) (PANKAJ MITHAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
SRINAGAR
16.08.2022
Altaf
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
