IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
M. A. Chowdhary, J.
Mehrun Nisa D/o Ab. Rehman Bhat - Appellant
Vs.
Sheri Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar Through its Director - Respondent
SWP No. 1714 of 2016
Decided On : 30-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners, 45 in number, are aggrieved of the Government Order No. 15-SKIMS of 2013 dated 19.03.2013 (hereinafter referred as ‘impugned order’ for short) whereby the services of the petitioners, who were initially engaged on contractual basis as Staff Nurses, were regularized with effect from 19.03.2013 i.e., from the date of issuance of the said Government Order. The grievance of the petitioners is that their regularization was not given effect from the date of their initial appointment under SRO 255 dated 05.08.2003 against migrant vacancies, as has been done in case of other similarly situated contractual employees.
2. Through the medium of the instant Service Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned Order No. 15- SKIMS of 2013 dated 19.03.2013 to the extent that the regularization of the petitioners was to be given effect from the date they were initially appointed under SRO 255, and also sought direction to the respondents to grant them all consequential benefits, consequent to their regularization from retrospective date.
3. Brief facts of the instant case are that the petitioners, who had been initially appointed as Staff Nurses Grade-II on contractual basis in terms of SRO 255 dated 05.08.2003 against the migrant vacancies, claimed that their services be regularized but the respondents took no action, as such, they filed writ petition bearing SWP No. 363/2021, which was allowed vide judgment dated 18.07.2012, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their service and provide ‘other service benefits in accordance with the rules’ to them; that consequent to the judgment so delivered, the services of the petitioners came to be regularized vide the impugned order but from the date of issuance of the order i.e. 19.03.2013; that the petitioners are entitled to regularization from the dates of their initial engagement.
4. It was alleged that another group of Staff Nurses Grade-II were also appointed vide Government Order No. 59-SKIMS of 2007 dated 23.10.2007, and subsequently this group of Staff Nurses, who were similarly placed as the petitioners came to be regularized vide Government Order No. 31- SKIMS of 2008 dated 10.03.2008 with effect from 13.09.2007; that the Government Order No. 610-GAD of 2006 dated 16.05.2006 provides for regularization against the migrant posts without waiting for the post to get vacated due to retirement or promotion of migrant employees and the said Government Order does not provide the date from which a person holding migrant post has to be regularized; that the petitioners continued in the service uninterruptedly and the services, so rendered by the petitioners, under the provisions of Classification Control and Appeal Rules, have to be regularized after formal orders of regularization are issued; that the services rendered by the petitioners between 2007/2008 till 2013 cannot go without recognition under Rules; that the petitioners shall be deemed to be on probation as from the date they were initially appointed under SRO 255; that this position has been accepted by the respondents themselves while dealing with the case of similarly situated Staff Nurses who were also appointed under SRO 255 and against migrant vacancies, and the petitioners cannot be discriminated.
5. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:-
(II) That the petitioners in the matter of regularization cannot be discriminated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(III) That the petitioners are entitled to regularization on the basis of the judgment delivered by this Court from the date of their initial appointment;
(IV) That the petitioners, therefore, question Government Order No. 15-SKIMS of 2013 dated 19.03.2013 only to the limited extent that the said ord
Registrar General of India & Anr. Vs. V. Thippa Setty & Ors
M.Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By L.Rs Vs. M.Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors. reported as 2007 (6) SCC 401
Purnendu Mukhopadhyay & Ors. Vs. V.K.Kapoor & Anr. reported as 2008 (14) SCC 403
Discriminatory treatment in employment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, necessitating equal consideration for regularization and pension benefits for similarly situated employees.
Regularization of daily-wage or casual employees is not an automatic right upon completing 240 days of service. It remains contingent upon the availability of sanctioned posts and adherence to govern....
Regularization of services for employees who have served for over ten years is a right that must be considered by the state, provided there are no valid objections, and the state must adhere to its o....
Appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.
Long-serving casual workers entitled to regularization with age/qualification relaxation when similarly situated peers regularized and posts available, upholding Art.14 equality.
The denial of regularization to similarly situated employees constitutes discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, justifying judicial intervention to restore equitable treatment.
Daily wage employees who meet the eligibility criteria under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001, are entitled to be considered for regularizat....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.