ORDER

Hon’ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman By filing this TA, the applicant has sought the following main reliefs:

“(i) It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue the directions in the form of Writ of Certiorari quashing the order impugned No. PHEJ/11991-96 dated 12.12.2002 of respondent No. 2 whereby he held the petitioner not entitled for the benefit of SRO 181 after conducting the exparte inquiry proceedings and writ petition of Mandamus commanding the respondent to provide the benefits of SRO 181 to the petitioner as per agreement at the time of acquiring his land for the constructions of water reservoirs and staff quarter in his village and adjoining.

(ii) To direct the respondents to pay the petitioner minimum wages as per Minimus Wages Act till the decision of this case.

2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated by the applicant, are that in order to construct reserviors for storing water and also to construct quarters for departmental staff to look after the safety of the reserviors, the respondents sanctioned different water supply schemes in the year

1990. For the said purpose, the respondents approached the applicant for donation of his land with the promise that in lieu of his land, he would be given employment in the department as per SRO No.181 of 1988. The applicant agreed to the said proposal, and donated 10 marlas of land out of his total 18 marlas land leaving only 8 marlas of land in his possession. Admittedly the respondents constructed reservoirs and staff quarters on the said land.

3. It is stated by the applicant that after acqusition of the land, he was engaged by the PHE Department in the year 1991 but was being paid Rs.200/- per month as salary. Since the applicant was being paid a very meagre amount of Rs.200/- per month whereas other employees in the PHE department performing the same duties were being paid not less than Rs.5000/- per month, he approached the respondents for the same benefits but his claim was rejected despite the fact that the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in Abdul Rehman Bahroo & Ors. vs. State of J&K, [L.R. 2001 Page 419] has held that every employee should at lease get the wages as per Minimum Wages Act.

4. It is the contention of the applicant that he along with other similarly situated persons approached the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir for redressal of their grievance by way of SWP No.763 of 2002, which was finally disposed of, vide order dated 26.03.2002 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the decision given in LPA No.309 of 1996 and in view of the observations made by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in Abdul Rehman Bahroo (supra), within a period of three months. It is the case of the applicant that when the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble High Court was not implemented, the petitioners preferred a Contempt Petition wherein the respondents took the plea that on enquiry being made, it was found that the petitioner had not donated his 50% of land to the department, he was not found entitled to the employement. This plea of the respondents was not accepted by the Hon’ble High Court as the so called enquiry was conducted without the knowledge and notice of the petitioners, hence, the said enquiry was held to be against the principles of natural justice.

5. The respondents have filed their reply and stated that the applicant is not similarly situated employee as that of regular employees. They further submitted that since the applicant has donated less than 50% of his land to the respondent department, he is not entitled for the employment. They have also taken the objection that as the present issue has already been dealt with by the Hon’ble High Court, the applicant is estopped from approaching this Tribunal again.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the Hon’bl