Tarsem Singh Age 31 Years vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir
2023 Latest Caselaw 2284 j&K

                                                                       07

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU
SWP No. 1091/2015
c/w
CPSW No. 192/2015


1.     Tarsem Singh age 31 years S/o                   .....Petitioners/Appellants
       Shri Bishan Singh, R/o
       Ramgarh, Ward No. 3, H. No. 3,
       Tehsil Ramgarh, District Samba.

2.     Sat Pal age 25 years S/o
       Sh. Ashok Kumar, R/o Ward
       No. 1, near Laxmi Mandir,
       Nandpur, Utterbehni, District
       Samba.

R.
                        Through: Mr. Nitin Verma, Advocate
                  Vs
1.     The State of Jammu and Kashmir,                            ..... Respondents
       through Commissioner/Secretary to
       Govt. Housing Department, Civil
       Secretariat, Jammu.

2.     The Director, Urban Local Bodies,
       Jammu.

3.     The Executive Officer, Municipal
       Committee, Vijaypur, District Samba.


                        Through: Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
                              JUDGMENT (ORAL)

13.10.2023

1) The petitioners have sought a direction upon respondent No. 3 to

release salary of the petitioners from the Month of May, 2013 till the date of

filing of the writ petition along with interest @ 24%. Further direction has

SWP No. 1091/2015

been sought upon the respondents not to terminate the services of the

petitioners till proper recruitment is made.

2) As per case of the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a

Casual Labourer on need basis on 03.05.2011 and petitioner No. 2 was

engaged on 01.07.2010 by the orders issued by respondent No. 3. It is case

of the petitioners that ever since their engagement, they have been working

to the satisfaction of their superiors. According to the petitioners, since May,

2013, the respondents have stopped releasing wages in their favour without

any reason. A number of representations are stated to have been made by the

petitioners to the respondents seeking release of their wages but without any

fruitful result. It has submitted been that the respondents are now threatening

to disengage the petitioners.

3) The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply

thereto. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that the petitioners

were engaged on need basis as Casual Labourers upto April 2013,

whereafter they were never provided any work/duty by the respondents. It

has been submitted that the petitioners were not engaged against any

post/vacancy and their engagement was purely as Casual Labourers on need

basis, therefore, the petitioners have no right to continue. It has been

submitted that upto April 2013, the wages of the petitioners have been

released in their favour and thereafter there is no question of release of

wages in their favour because they have not worked with the respondents

since May 2013.

SWP No. 1091/2015

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of

the case.

5) There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners were engaged as

Casual Labourers by the respondents. The contention of the petitioners that

they were engaged against the clear vacancies has been categorically denied

by the respondents and the petitioners have not placed on record any

document to show that their services were engaged against any clear

vacancy. Even otherwise, the petitioners admit that they were engaged as

Casual Labourers on need basis, which means that the status of the

petitioners is not even that of Daily Rated Worker. The services of the

petitioners as per their own showing were utilized by the respondents on

need basis, as such, they have no right to continue in the service, nor can

they seek their regularization without there being any policy of the

respondents to this effect.

6) So far as question regarding release of wages is concerned, the

petitioners claim that they are still continuing as Casual Labourers with the

respondents, which fact has been denied by the respondents, who have taken

a stand that the petitioners were engaged as Casual Labourers on need basis

upto April, 2013 and thereafter they were not assigned any duties/work.

However, the petitioners have placed on record a copy of communication

dated 06.01.2015 issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee,

Vijaypur, whereby the said officer has forwarded information with regard to

the Daily Rated Workers, Consolidate Paid Workers and Casual Labourers

working in Municipal Committee, Vijaypur. The list includes the names of

SWP No. 1091/2015

the petitioners as well. As already stated that the communication is dated

06.01.2015 and it is indicated in the said communication that the list

includes names of Casual Labourers working in the said Committee, which

means the list includes the Casual Labourers, who were working with the

Municipal Committee, Vijaypur as on date of issuance of the said

communication.

7) The respondents in their reply, while admitting the authenticity of the

said communication, have stated that the communication merely provides

the names of the persons, who have worked in the Municipal Committee,

Vijaypur and it does not mean that these persons are working in the said

Committee as on date of issuance of the said communication. The said

explanation tendered by the respondents cannot be accepted as in

communication dated 06.01.2015, it is no where stated that the list annexed

with the said communication includes those Daily Rated Workers,

Consolidated Workers and Casual Labourers, who have already been

disengaged. This is so because in the remarks column of the list there is no

mention about the disengagement of the petitioners or other persons, whose

names figure in the said list. In case of one Ajay Kumar, figuring at Sr. No.

17 of the said list, it is clearly indicated in the remarks column that the said

person has been selected as a Driver vide order dated 24.10.2014 and posted

in the Municipal Committee, Ramgarh. Had the petitioners been disengaged

in May 2013, this fact would have been definitely found a mention in the

remarks column of the list. From this, it can safely be inferred that as on date

of communication dated 06.01.2015, the petitioners were working as Casual

Labourers with the Municipal Committee, Vijaypur. However, there is no

SWP No. 1091/2015

document on record, which would even remotely suggest that the petitioners

continue to be working with the respondents as on date. The question

whether the petitioners are working with the respondents as on date becomes

a disputed fact in view of categorical denial of the said fact by the

respondents. The same cannot be determined by this Court in writ

proceedings.

8) In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed and the

respondents are directed to release the wages of the petitioners with effect

from May, 2013 to 06.01.2015 at the rate that was being paid to them prior

to the said period. Wages shall be released in favour of the petitioners within

a period of three months from the date of this order. Relief relating to

continuation of engagement of the petitioners is, however, declined.

9)    The petition stands disposed of accordingly.


CPSW No. 192/2015

10) In view of the aforesaid order passed in the main petition, the interim

order, which is subject matter of the instant contempt petition stands merged

with the final order. The contempt proceedings, therefore, do not survive.

The same are closed. The contempt petition is disposed of.

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE

Jammu 13.10.2023 Karam Chand/Secy

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No