S. No. 02
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
LPA No.193/2023 in SWP No.2840/2018
C/w LPA No.192/2023
Reserved On: 06.02.2025.
\
Pronounced On: 13.02.2025.
01.Sajad Hussain Najar.
S/O Mohammad Shafi,
R/o Marhama Sangam, Kulgam.
02.Bilal Ahmad Ganaie.
S/O Ab.Hamid,
R/oKantchaowa, Kulgam.
03.Mushtaq Ahmad Wani
S/o Bashir Ahmad
R/o Chehllam Kulgam.
.....Appellants
Through: Mr. B.A. Misri, Advocate.
V/s
01.Union Territory through Comr.Secy.R&B,Deptt.Jammu/Srinagar
02.Managing Director, JKPCC, Jammu/Kashmir.
03. General Manager, JKPCC, Srinagar
04.Dy.G.M.JKPCC, Unit 11th Kulgam.
05.Dy.G.Manager( ADM) JKPCC Ltd. Srinagar.
.....Respondent(s)
Through : Mr. Illyas Laway, Government Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. These intra-court appeals are directed against a common judgment
dated 19.08.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court
(writ Court) in SWP No.2840/2018 and SWP No. 1536/2017
whereby, the writ petitions filed by the appellants have been
dismissed.
2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by
Mr.B.A.Misri, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, we
deem it proper to state a few facts.
3. The case of the appellants before the writ court was that they came
to be engaged as daily wagers on need basis in the year 2009-10
by the then Dy. General Manager, JKPCC Ltd. Unit 11th Kulgam,
and continued to perform their duties till Government order No.
No.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015 was issued. By virtue of the
said order, the Government withdrew the authority given to
officers of the various departments, to engage casual/seasonal
labours delegated by the Government from time to time.
4. Apprehending their disengagement pursuant to the aforesaid
Government order, the appellants filed writ petition SWP No.
1536/2017, in which the writ court vide interim order dated
08.08.2017 directed the respondents to release due wages of the
appellants. In compliance to the interim order dated 08.08.2017
passed by the writ court, respondents issued a consideration order
which was made subject matter of challenge in a petition filed by
the appellants i.e., SWP No.2840/2018.
5. The second writ petition filed by the appellants was contested by
the respondents by filing their written response. In the written
response filed, the respondents took the plea that appellants were
engaged by the respondent corporation on need basis and against
LPA No.193 of 2023 2|Page
the work available in the projects executed by the Corporation. It
was further submitted in the reply affidavit that on completion of
the projects, Corporation was left with no work to continue with
the engagement of Casual labours/daily wagers including the
appellants. It was further submitted that in view of the completion
of the projects and non-availability of work, services of the
appellants were disengaged. It was also plea taken by the
respondents that engagement of the appellants by the Dy. General
Manager, JKPCC Ltd. was without any legal authority or sanction
and therefore, was not sustainable under law. The Government
order No. No.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015 was also relied upon
by the respondents to justify the disengagement of the appellants.
6. The writ court considered the rvial contentions in the light of
material on record and came to the conclusion that the appellants
having been engaged on need basis as casual labours in projects
had no vested right to continue in the engagement. The writ court,
accordingly, dismissed both the writ petitions including SWP
No.2840/2018.
7. The impugned order is challenged by the appellants inter-alia on
the ground that the respondent corporation had engaged thousands
of employees in similar fashion and have allowed them to continue
whereas the Appellants have been disengaged. They approached
this court seeking release of their pending wages but were greeted
with disengagement.
LPA No.193 of 2023 3|Page
8. Mr. B.A. Misri, would argue that the Corporation has several
projects in hand to execute and therefore, cannot take refuge to the
plea that it is left with no work to be offered to the appellants. He
further pleads for release of unpaid dues of the appellants.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed
by the writ court is legally perfect and the view taken is
unexceptionable. Admittedly, with the issuance of SRO 64 of
1994, all the daily rated workers who, on 31.03.1994, had
completed 7 years of continuous service were appointed in the
regular pay scale of class 4th and those who completed seven years
in subsequent years were accordingly regularized in the relevant
financial year. Rule 7 of SRO 64 1994, however, put a complete
ban on engagement of daily rated workers or work charged
employees in future. It was specifically mentioned in Rule 7 that,
with effect from commencement of the Rules, no
Field/Subordinate officer shall have the power for engagement of a
Daily Rated worker or work charged employee in the department
and the existing delegation, if any, is withdrawn. A proviso added
to Rule 7, however, provided that the competent authority may
engage Casual Labour or Seasonal Labour in any of the
departments to be specified by notification from time to time by
the Government and such Labour shall be on the Muster Roll for
payment of wages and no engagement or appointment orders shall
be issued. As is rightly comprehended by the Writ court that the
LPA No.193 of 2023 4|Page
appellants came to be engaged in the Respondent Corporation
under the aforesaid proviso added to Rule 7 of SRO 64 of 1994.
10.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that all the appellants
were engaged by the then Deputy General Manager of the
Corporation i.e., a Field or a Subordinate officer who lacked
competence to make such engagements in terms of proviso to Rule
7 of SRO 64 of 1994. The engagement of appellants was also
contrary to proviso added to Rule 7, in that, (Supra). They were not
put on any Muster Roll. It is appropriate to note that under the
Proviso to Rule 7 (Supra), the Government had issued orders from
time to time to delegate authority to the departments to engage
Casual/Seasonal labours. One such order passed was Government
order No. 239-F of 2005 dated 29.11.2005. However, all these
orders were withdrawn vide Government order No.43-F of 2015
dated 17.03.2015. It means that on and after 17.03.2015, no
authority in any of the departments was entitled to engage
Casual/Seasonal Labour and the authority earlier delegated by the
Government stood withdrawn with immediate effect.
11.The writ court has examined the entire matter in the light of above
Proviso to SRO 64 of 1994 and the impact of order dated
17.03.2015 and has come to a just conclusion that though the
appellants were engaged by a person not competent to do so yet
they continued to work so long as their services were required for
the execution of the projects in hand. It is a common knowledge
and this court can take a judicial notice that J&K PCC was/is
engaged in executing different projects handed over to it by the
LPA No.193 of 2023 5|Page
Government and with a view to carrying out its projects, it
engaged/engages CasuaL/Seasonal Labours on need basis. Such
engagement on need basis are co-terminus with the projects the
engagements are made in. This exactly was the stand of the
respondent corporation before this court.
12.We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made
by Mr.B.A.Misri, learned counsel for the appellants but could not
persuade ourselves to agree with his contention that the appellants
are entitled to continue as Casual/Seasonal labour till eternity.
13.Admittedly, engagement of appellants was purely on need basis
and in respect of the work available under the projects and the
same was necessarily to come to an end with the completion of
projects. We cannot doubt the stand taken by the respondents that
the engagement of the appellants by the then Deputy General
Manager besides being without any authority, was contrary to the
Proviso to Rule 7 of SRO 64 of 1994.
14.For all these reasons as also for the reasoning given by the writ
court in support of its judgment, we find no merit in these appeals
and the same merit dismissal. However, before parting, we would
like to direct the respondent corporation to appoint an Officer of
the rank of Deputy General Manager to go into the grievance of the
appellants with regard to their outstanding wages which as per the
appellants had not been paid to them. The Deputy General
Manager shall conduct a detailed enquiry associating the appellants
here and give its report to the Managing Director of the JKPCC. If
LPA No.193 of 2023 6|Page
upon enquiry, Respondent Corporation finds that the appellants or
any of them have not been paid their wages for the period they
have rendered their services, their wages shall be released. The
enquiry shall be completed within a period of two months from the
date this order is served upon respondents and the amount, if any,
found due to the appellants, shall be released to them within three
months thereafter.
15.With the aforesaid observations and directions both the appeals are
dismissed.
(PUNEET GUPTA) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR
13.02.2025
Nuzhat Parveen
1. Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes
13.02.25 LPA No.193 of 2023 7|Page
