The court ruled that the determination of employment status as a contingent worker must be adjudicated in a Writ Court, not in contempt proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J:

1. This is a Petition for seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Respondents for their willful disobedience and non- compliance of the Judgment dated 6^th of July, 2018 passed by this Court in LPASW No. 119/2016, whereby this Court has, while disposing of the appeal, directed the competent authority under SRO 520 of 2017 to consider the claim of the Petitioner for regularization by a speaking Order.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this Contempt Petition are that the Petitioner was engaged as Gardener on 23^rd of March, 2001 on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.1,500/-. The said remuneration was increased from time to time.

3. In the year 2011, a process for regularization of the services of the Petitioner was initiated by the Respondents, but the same did not reach its logical end. The Petitioner filed SWP No. 1737/2012, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 24^th of May, 2013, with a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization of his services.

4. The claim of the Petitioner was considered by the Respondents and vide Order dated 15^th of September, 2015, the same was rejected on the ground that the case of the Petitioner was not covered under the J&K Special Provisions Act, 2010 (“the Act of 2010”).

5. The aforesaid consideration Order was, again, challenged by the Petitioner in SWP No. 2471/2015, which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 28^th of March, 2016, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar to appoint the Petitioner on a Class-IV post.

6. This Judgment of the Writ Court dated 28^th of March, 2016 was assailed by the State in LPASW No. 119/2016. The appeal filed by the State was allowed vide Judgment dated 6^th of July, 2018 and the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 28^th of March, 2016 was set aside, however, a direction was issued to the competent authority under SRO 520 of 2017 to consider the claim of the Petitioner for regularization of his services by a speaking Order.

7. When the case of the Petitioner was not considered by the Respondents in compliance with the Judgment passed by this Court, the instant Contempt Petition was filed by the Petitioner.

8. The Respondents filed Compliance Reports from time to time, but same were not accepted by this Court. Lastly, in compliance with the Order dated 11^th of December, 2023 passed in these proceedings, the matter was re-considered by the Respondents through a Committee headed by Additional Secretary to the Government, Department of Planning, Development and Monitoring, which was constituted vide Government Order No. 05-JK(PD&MD) of 2024 dated 4^th of March, 2024. On the basis of the conclusions arrived at by the Committee, the Respondents, vide Government Order No. 54-JK(PD&MD) of 2024 dated 8^th of May, 2024, passed a detailed speaking Order and rejected the claim of the Petitioner for regularization of his services, being devoid of merit.

9. The claim of the Petitioner for regularization of his services in terms of SRO 520 of 2017 has been rejected on, in as many as, six grounds. It is true and we agree with the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that some of the grounds mentioned in the consideration Order to justify the rejection of the claim of the Petitioner are absurd and palpably wrong, however, some of the grounds do raise debatable questions of law. For instance, the Respondents have, in the consideration Order, stated that the Petitioner, having been engaged on consolidated basis, was being paid from contingency fund and, therefore, was not covered by SRO 520 of 2017 .

10. It is not in dispute and, as a matter of fact, a clear stand was taken by the State before the Writ Court that the engagement of the Petitioner as Gardener on consolidated remuneration of Rs. 1,500/- per month was by debit to office expenses and that the wages were being paid out