The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to regularization of services and consequential benefits if they have been engaged on a contractual basis against clear vacancies, and the prohibition of providing wrong information to the court.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the official respondents to regularize their services with effect from the date respondents 6 to 8 came to be regularized, or, with effect from the date respondents 4 & 5 came to be regularized vide Order No. PDC/CJ/44 of 2010 dated 16.01.2010. Petitioners are also seeking a direction to the official respondents to enhance their salary retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 14.09.2005. The facts-in-brief, as projected in the writ petition, are that initially petitioners and respondents 6 to 8 were appointed on casual basis as Helpers and Junior Engineers on monthly emoluments of Rs. 1800/- and Rs. 3500/- respectively in the J&K State Power Development Corporation with effect from 02.08.2002, thereafter their services were converted into contractual basis with effect from 01.04.2005 on monthly emoluments of Rs. 4500/- in case of Shift Engineers/Jr. Engineers and Rs. 1800/- in case of petitioners herein. It is averred that respondents 4 & 5 were also appointed on contractual basis in the Power Development Department on 05.05.2005 vide Government Order No. 149-PDD of 2005 dated 27.04.2005, who were later on sent to State Power Development Corporation on deputation basis.

2. It is averred that services of petitioners and private respondents came to be extended from time to time. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.08.2009, monthly emoluments of petitioners were enhanced from Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 2500/-. Further, it is averred that the Government issued Notification dated 31.08.2009 under SRO 266, whereby amendments were made in the J&K Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, notifying grade pay in favour of various categories of employees, which also covered the pay band in which the petitioners were working. With a view to examine the cases of adhoc/contractual/consolidated employees in various Government Departments by the Empowered Committee, all the administrative departments vide order dated 14.10.2009 were asked to furnish the list of all such employees. However, it was made clear that the persons working in academic arrangement, for a fixed term or against tenure post with the life of the project, non-governmental agencies or autonomous bodies or public sector undertaking or Corporations or Government Companies or Societies or other local authorities, which have their own rules and regulations, governing their functioning or part time or seasonal workers, including those, whose wages are paid from the local funds, or contingent grants, were not to be covered under this Government order.

3. It is averred that since the State Power Development Corporation, the employer of petitioners, did not have its own rules and regulations and it followed the rules and regulations of Power Development Department framed by the Government, therefore, its employees, including the petitioners were covered under order dated 14.10.2009. It is averred that although in terms of said order, the Power Development Corporation was to furnish the list of all such employees including that of petitioners, but initially it failed to refer the names of petitioners to the Member Secretary of the Empowered Committee for regularization of their services, however, later on respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 11.12.2009 sent the particulars of petitioners as well as private respondents for further necessary action.

4. It is averred that vide Order No. PDC/CJ/144 of 2010 dated 16.01.2010 sanction was accorded to the regular appointment of respondents 4 to 8 in the pay scale of 4500-7000 (pre-revised), thereby giving the benefit of Order No. 1423-GAD of 2009 dated 14.10.2009, whereas the services of petitioners have not been regularized, although they too had been working without any interruption ever since they were appointed in the year 2002. It is averred that respondents 6 to 8 were appointed along with petitioners in t