Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Gulzar Hussain vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 30 May, 2022
Sr. No. 03
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(Through Virtual Mode Srinagar)
WP(C) No.1866/2020
CM No. 6716/2020
Gulzar Hussain .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ankush Manhas, Advocate
Vs
Union Territory of J&K and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG
Mr. Sanchit Verma, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of
leaned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner was engaged as SPO in the year 2013 in the District Police,
Samba and was allotted Belt No.38/DS. The petitioner was disengaged
by the respondent No.4 vide order No.15/1118-22/DPOs dated
11.02.2015. The petitioner being aggrieved of this order preferred SWP
No.1770/2016 which came to be disposed of by the court vide order
dated 26.12.2017. The respondents were directed by the court to pass
fresh orders after giving the petitioner opportunity of being heard. It
appears that the petitioner was disengaged as the allegations of
malpractice was levelled against him. The respondent No.4 vide order
No.14 dated 09.01.2019 exonerated the petitioner of the charges and
reengaged the petitioner as SPO who was allotted a new service Belt
No.11/GS. The petitioner submits that since then he is working as such
with the official respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
petitioner is still being given Rs.6000/- as monthly honorarium whereas
the order No.Home-1422 dated 23.10.2018 sanctioned increase of
Rs.9000/- per month as honorarium of SPOs who have completed five
years of service. As he has completed more than five years service as he
was engaged in the year 2013, he is entitled to enhance honorarium. The
petitioner also seeks honorarium from March 2018 to December 2018 for
the period he remained disengaged as SPO.
3. The objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents wherein
the factual position as stated in the petition is not disputed by the
respondents. However, the stand of the respondent is that the petitioner
has been re-engaged as SPO and given Belt No.11/GS vide order No. 14
of 2019 dated 09.01.2019, passed by the SSP Samba. The petitioner
being re-engaged as per the aforesaid order of 2019 therefore he cannot
claim any benefit of the order passed by the respondents in the year 2018
or claim honorarium for the period he remained disengaged.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.
5. The controversy in the present case lies in narrow compass as the facts
stated in the petition are not disputed by the other side. The only ground
taken by the respondents is that there was break in engagement of the
petitioner from 11.02.2015 to 09.01.2019 and did not perform his duties
and therefore is not entitled to claim honorarium for the aforesaid period.
This period cannot be counted in order to give benefit to the petitioner of
Government order No. Home/1492 of 2018 dated 23.10.2018 which
relates to enhancement of honorarium to the tune of Rs.9000/- per month
for the SPO who had completed five years of service as SPO.
6. It cannot be disputed that the engagement of the petitioner as SPO is a
temporary arrangement and he is only entitled to honorarium as being
fixed by the respondents from time to time. He cannot claim the benefit
of being a permanent employee of the respondents department. The
engagement of the petitioner in the year 2013 as SPO came to end vide
order dated 11.02.2015. The petitioner was again re-engaged vide order
No. 14 of 2019 dated 09.01.2019 after he was exonerated in the
departmental enquiry. The petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of
order No.1492 of 2018 dated 23.10.2018 as his services as SPO are
required to be counted for that purpose moreso when he was disengaged
on account of alleged malpractice committed by him and was re-engaged
only after he was exonerated of the charges. The argument of learned
AAG that as the petitioner has only been re-engaged and has been
granted the new belt number and therefore he cannot any claim benefit of
the said government order No.1492 of 2018 cannot be entertained.
7. As far as the relief claim for the honorarium for the period of the
petitioner remained disengaged is concerned, the court cannot come to
the rescue of the petitioner. The petitioner has not rendered any service
for the period of 46 months and therefore cannot claim any honorarium
for the said period. The engagement of the petitioner in a way was
otherwise temporary and therefore has no vested right to claim such
benefit.
8. The petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents
to treat the petitioner having been engaged even for the period he
remained disengaged only for purposes of enhancement of honorarium to
which the SPOs are entitled to in terms of order No. Home-1492 of 2018
and for no other claim. The petitioner is held not entitled to the
honorarium for the period he remained disengaged.
(Puneet Gupta)
Judge
Jammu
30.05.2022
Shammi
