AB RAHEEM RESHI Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Ab Raheem Reshi
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE petitioner got engaged on 1st of December 1988 as a casual worker on daily wage basis. This was done by the competent authority of the
department of public works, District Budgam. The District Superintending
Engineer, PWD, District Budgam directed, vide his No. 7465 -66 dated
28 -9 -1988, the petitioner to work as a works supervisor on daily wage basis.
(2.) THE Petitioner claims that vide the aforesaid Superintending Engineers communication he got elevated to the post, on which he has been
working, in the PHE Division at Budgam, Kashmir. Vide the regularisation
Rules of 1994, nomen -clatured as J&K Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged
Employees (Regularisation) Rules 1994 issued under SRO 64/94, the
petitioner having continuously worked for a period of seven years as such
daily worker got regularised in the grade of Rs. 750 -940. This
regularisation took effect from 1 -4 -1994. The petitioner has the
grievance that having been put to work as the works supervisor he was
entitled, after the regularisation to be designated as such works
supervisor and was further entitled to be accorded the pay scale of the
work supervisor, in the grade of Rs. 940 -1500. Instead of being
designated as such works -supervisor he got labelled as a helper. He made
representations for the change of his designation and for being allowed
the grade of works supervisor but to no results. Claim to the grade of
Rs. 950 -1500 is based on the plank that other works supervisors in the
department are paid salary in that grade so on the principle of equal pay
for equal work, he is entitled to that grade.
(3.) IT is on the aforesaid pleas that the petitioner seeks the writ of mandamus so as to command the respondents to designate him as the
works supervisor and to release the first grade of pay of works
supervisor that is Rs. 950 -1500 in his favour with effect from the date
of his regularisation that is 1 -4 -1994.
After the admission of the petition the respondents were afforded reasonable opportunity to file the reply affidavit but as does
often happen, the reasons whereof need not be commented upon him, the
reply affidavit has not been filed and the result is that the petition
has come up for final hearing, without any reply to the pleas advanced in
the writ petition which thus assume significance.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.