SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(J&K) 582

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S.A.Makroo, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Basharat Ahmad Wani, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA.

Discriminatory treatment in employment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, necessitating equal consideration for regularization and pension benefits for similarly situated employees.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and 16 - Jammu & Kashmir Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1965 - SRO 400 of 2009 - Petitioners challenged the prospective regularization of their services as Orderlies, seeking retrospective effect and equal treatment as similarly situated employees. Court quashed the impugned orders for discriminatory treatment and directed equal consideration for regularization and pension benefits. (Paras 1-30)

(B) Discrimination in Employment - The court highlighted that similar treatment must be accorded to employees in similar positions, emphasizing the violation of constitutional rights when unequal treatment is applied. (Paras 7-19)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were engaged on a contractual basis since 2004 and sought regularization, which was delayed compared to similarly situated employees, leading to claims of discrimination.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners were subjected to discrimination and their claims for regularization and pension benefits were valid.

Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioners were entitled to retrospective regularization and equal treatment as similarly situated employees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that retrospective regularization is generally impermissible, but equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 must be upheld, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders.

Result: Writ Petition allowed.

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.

    (A) Petitioner No.1, a matriculate, was engaged as Orderly in the respondent Board on contractual basis on 26.08.2004 in terms of Order No. KVIB/300 of 2004 and this engagement was extended till further orders by virtue of Order No. KVIB/574 of 2005 dated 13.01.2005; that similarly, petitioner No.2, having qualification of 10+2, also came to be engaged as Orderly on contractual basis in terms of Order No. KVIB/428 of 2004 dated 10.11.2004, which order was subsequently extended till further orders by virtue of Order No. KVIB/645 of 2005 dated 21.02.2005; that in view of satisfactory performance of the petitioners, sanction was accorded to the extension of benefits of Government Order No.1661- GAD of 2009 dated 26.11.2009 in their favour, entitling them to consolidated salary equivalent to the minimum of the pay band plus applicable grade pay to the post of Orderly.

    (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:-

    (I) Writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned communication No. KVIB/Adm/PF-503/7240-46 dated 29.01.2019

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top