Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Akhter Hussain Wani vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 21 May, 2022
Sr. No. 14
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
LPA No. 154/2020
CM Nos. 8133/2020 &
8134/2020
Akhter Hussain Wani .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Sheikh Najeeb, Advocate.
Vs
UT of J&K and ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
21.05.2022
(OPEN COURT)
PER: THAKUR-J
1. The petitioner/appellant herein had approached the writ court,
asserting that his case ought not to have been considered under the
J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 but under SRO 64 of
1994. The writ court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner
on the ground that only daily rated workers were entitled for
regularization under SRO 64.
2. In the present appeal proceedings, the appellant stated that the case
of the petitioner should have also been considered for regularization
under Govt. Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 6.11.2001.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has highlighted the aforesaid Govt.
Order, which also reflects the view expressed by this High Court in a
case titled Ashok Kumar & ors Vs. State & ors, 2003(Supp.) JKJ 93.
In Ashok Kumar's case (supra), the view expressed was that the case
of adhoc employees could not be worse than a daily rated worker.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the case
of the appellant could not have been summarily rejected.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Going strictly as per the law of pleadings, what was asserted by the
appellant in the writ petition before the writ court was considered by
the writ court on its own merits and rejected the contentions raised
thereupon. Insofar as the judgment and order impugned is
concerned, we cannot say that there is any legal infirmity, in the
same. However, it appears that the appellant's case is that he could
have also been considered under the Govt. Order No. 1285-GAD of
2001, which case was not specifically set up by him in the writ
petition. There was no occasion for the writ court to have gone into
this issue as it was never pleaded so.
7. We are convinced that the view expressed by the writ court merits no
interference, however, the appellant would be at liberty to approach
the Govt. for consideration of his case under Govt. Order No. 1285-
GAD of 2001. In case any such representation is filed, the Govt.
would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders. We make it clear that
we have not determined the rights of the appellant as regards his
entitlement under Govt. Order No. 1285 of 2001 and have simply
permitted the appellant to avail his right of making a representation,
which will be dealt with on its own merits by the Govt. itself within
two months thereafter.
8. Disposed of as above along with connected application(s).
(Rahul Bharti) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge Judge
Jammu
21.05.2022
Naresh
