[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Sajad Qadir And Ors vs Giridhar Aramane And Anr on 9 February, 2026
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
Sr. No. 392026:JKLHC-SGR:20
Regular
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CCP(S) 520/2022
CM(3239/2025) CM(5798/2025)
SAJAD QADIR AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)
Through: Mr. S.A. Makroo, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Irfan Rasool, Advocate
Vs.
GIRIDHAR ARAMANE AND ANR ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Faizan Ahmad, CGC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
09-02-2026
1. In the instant contempt petition, the petitioners herein have alleged
non-compliance of judgment and order dated 24.03.2022, wherein at paras 9,
10, and 17 being relevant herein following has been provided:
"9. The respondents have filed objections/reply in opposition to the
writ petition. It has been stated that the Depot of 15 Corps Z receives
stocks from base depots for distribution to the forward depots. There
are 63 posts of permanent labourers but only 51 labourers are
posted. Due to the deficiency of permanent labourers and due to
excess workload on few days casual labourers are hired and they are
paid as per the Nerrick rates fixed by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour and Employment from time to time. These casual
labourers employed by the respondents have approached the
Department for the payment of minimum pay @₹18,000/- plus D.A.
w.e.f. 01.01.2016 as per the recommendation of the 7th Pay
Commission. The office of the 15 Corps vide letter dated 03.07.2019
informed them that since the engagement of casual labourers is
being done for work which is of causal or seasonal or intermittent in
nature and the said work is not a full time work for which regular
posts can be created, as such, they are not entitled to 'equal pay for
equal work'.
10. This apart, the respondents have not assigned any reasons
whatsoever for denying payment of 'equal pay for equal work' to the
petitioners despite the fact that admittedly though they are being
employed on daily wages they are working continuously for long
time and are discharging duties of the same nature as the regular 2026:JKLHC-SGR:20
porters or the seasonal porters of the Department.
17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is
disposed of with the direction to respondent No.6, Commandant, 221
Coy Asc, Supply Type (G), BB Cantt. Srinagar C/o 56 APO to re-
consider the matter of the grant of 'equal pay for equal work' to the
casual labourers employed as porters in the light of the observations
made above uninfluenced by its earlier order dated 03.07.2019
keeping in mind the various office memorandums referred to above
or any other office memorandum which may be relevant and is
placed before him and the observations of the Supreme Court in
Yash Pal (Supra). The respondent no.6 shall consider and pass a
speaking order in this regard within a period of three months from
the date a copy of this order is produced before him by any of the
parties."
2. Statement of facts has been filed by the respondents to the contempt
petition accompanying with an order of consideration dated 29.12.2025,
perusal whereof reveals that the respondents-contemnors though have had
initially passed a consideration order on 10.05.2025, the said consideration
order came to be withdrawn after passing of an order by this court in the
instant contempt petition on 01.07.2025, on the ground that the said
consideration had not been properly accorded.
3. Further perusal of the consideration order dated 29.12.2025 supra
reveals that the respondents, while passing the same, have adverted to the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in "Yash Pal's case" inasmuch as the
employment conditions of the seasonal porters employed by the respondents
in operational areas and consequently have concluded that the petitioners
though employed by them, yet have been assigned the duties of loading and
unloading of ration articles from the vehicles and placing the same in storage
facility inside depot itself, being distant and different from duties/tasks
assigned and discharged by seasonal porters who perform different duties in
difficult conditions and terrains in forward areas prone even to the artillery
shelling of the enemy, thereby suggesting that the petitioners are not entitled
to the fixed monthly pay plus compensatory allowances paid and allowed to
the said seasonal porters, in contrast to the duties assigned and performed by
the petitioners as casual labourers working on daily wage basis, governed by
statutory wage notifications besides engaged only for sporadic seasonal
2026:JKLHC-SGR:20
tasks.
The respondents-contemnnors have further stated that the
engagement of such casual labourers on daily wage basis has been
outsourced, engaged in terms of existing outsourcing procedure being a
third-party contractor and paid by the respondents-contemnnors for
providing service of such casual labourers on monthly basis.
4. Having regard to the judgment and order, non-compliance of which
is alleged in the instant contempt petition in general and in particular the
observation made by the Court therein and referred in the preceding paras
inasmuch as the specific stand taken by respondents Contemnors in the
statement of facts coupled with the contents of the consideration order supra,
seemingly the respondents-contemnors have complied with the judgment
and order.
5. Accordingly, contempt notice issued is recalled and proceedings are
closed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy, if any, available
under law against the consideration order dated 29.12.2025.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
09-02-2026
Junaid
