IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
M. A. Chowdhary, J.
Kawsar Ahmad Bhat S/O Abdul Aziz Bhat - Appellant
Vs.
State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Government Industries & Commerce Department Civil Sectt. Jammu/Srinagar - Respondent
SWP No. 303 of 2019
Decided On : 22-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
1. Through the medium of the instant Service Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged Order No. KVIB 169 of 2017 dated 11.08.2017, whereby prospective effect to the regularization of the contractual services of the petitioners as Orderlies in terms of SRO 400 of 2009 dated 24.12.2009, in J&K Khadi and Villages Industries Board (for short ‘Board’) and sought direction to quash the same alongwith communication No. KVIB/Adm/PF-503/7240-46 dated 29.01.2019, whereby petitioners’ representation was rejected.
2. Before proceeding in the matter, it would be profitable to give brief resume of the case set up by the petitioners.
(B) Petitioners made several representations before the respondents from 2004 i.e., from the date of their initial engagement till 2008, for regularizing their services on the analogy of similarly situated persons having been regularized; that the respondents advertised various posts which were lying vacant in the Board including the posts of Orderlies vide Advertisement Notice No. KVIB/02 of 2008 dated 17.11.2008; that since the petitioners were eligible, as such, they also applied for the posts of Orderlies; that the process in respect of the said advertisement, was not taken to its logical conclusion and instead, in the 100th meeting of the Board of Directors of J&K Khadi & Village Industries Board, the regularization cases of the petitioners and other contractual appointees was taken on board; that in violation of the principles of equal opportunity in the matter of public employment, the respondent Board regularized the services of Shri Prithvi Raj Sharma (Driver) and Shri Manzoor Hussain Bhat (Stenographer), who were also working on contractual basis; that the petitioners filed representation on 31.05.2013, pleading therein that they were similarly situated with the aforestated Shri Prithvi Raj Sharma and Shri Manzoor Hussain Bhat, however, they were subjected to invidious discrimination and their cases for regularization was not considered.
(C) After coming into force J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act 2010, and adopting the same by the respondent department and naming it as “Special Provisions of Contractual Appointees 2013”, the petitioners were finally regularized by the respondent Board, vide Order No. KVIB 169 of 2017 dated 11.08.2017, however, the respondents by virtue of the said order, granted the benefit of regularization to the petitioners, from the date of passing of the order and have also brought them under the provisions of SRO 400 of 2009 dated 24.12.2009.
3. It was alleged that as a result of delayed regularization, petitioners were made ineligible to earn the pension under the old pension scheme and finally the petitioners seek quashment of the impugned Order No. KVIB 169 of 2017 dated 11.08.2017 and communication No. KVIB/Adm/PF503/7240-46 dated 29.01.2019.
4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order/communication on the following grounds:-
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
Somesh Thapliyal & Anr. Vs. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University & Anr.
Discriminatory treatment in employment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, necessitating equal consideration for regularization and pension benefits for similarly situated employees.
Contractual employees may not claim regularization based on prolonged service or failed applications for higher posts, as employment must adhere to constitutional recruitment mandates.
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....
The denial of regularization to similarly situated employees constitutes discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, justifying judicial intervention to restore equitable treatment.
Long-serving casual workers entitled to regularization with age/qualification relaxation when similarly situated peers regularized and posts available, upholding Art.14 equality.
The court emphasizes that regularization of temporary employees must adhere to principles of equality and fairness, ensuring parity in treatment for similarly situated employees.
The court established that employees cannot claim regularization unless they are working against sanctioned posts, as per the Jharkhand Regularization Rules of 2015 and 2019.
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.