Decided on August 20,1999

Ab Raheem Reshi Appellant
STATE OF JANDK Respondents


- (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.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.