NASIR AHMAD DAR Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Nasir Ahmad Dar
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) PETITIONERS have been engaged on daily wages of Rs. 15/ - per working day by debit to work charge grants in the year 1988, 1990 and 1992 on
different dates. Their engagements were initially made for short periods,
but, from time to time, their engagements were extended by various
orders. Subsequently, they were engaged as casual labourers and continued
till 1994. They are still continuing a such pursuant to interim order
dated 22.03.1994 passed by this court. Their prayer is that their
services be regularised in terms of Government order No.26 -F of 1994
dated 31.1.1994. The said Government order was substituted by SRO 64 of
1994 which is para meteria with Government order No.26 -F of 1994. The second prayer they have made in the writ petition is for quashing of two
orders: one bearing No. DRD K -E/D/7438 -7532 dated 17.2.1994, by virtue of
which their engagement was to be discontinued; and the second order
No.SC/EXTT/WS/93 -94/1993 -2005 dated 15.2.1994, by virtue of which
services of all casual labourers of the Block to which the petitioners
belong, were discontinued. The petition have also prayed that the pay
scales of the posts they have been working against, be released in their
(2.) NO counter has been filed despite several opportunities given to the otherside.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
Simple point involved in the case is that the petitioners have been engaged as daily -wage/ casual labourer at Rs. 15/ - per day at the
time of initial engagement by debit to the work charge grants. There is
no written denial regarding this fact. The only point raised by Mr.
Attar, AAG is that the petitioners have been subsequently appointed as
casual labourers who do not come under the purview of SRO 64/94 for their
regularisation. He has contended that SRO 64/94 deals only with
daily -rated workers and work charge employees. This argument is not an
attractive one on two grounds: firstly, because their daily wages have
already been ordered to be debited to work charge grants, by which the
intention of the employer is obvious that the petitioners have been
treated as daily -wagers. It is only subsequently that nomenclature of the
status of the petitioners has been changed by inserting words "casual
labourers" against their engagement when their engagements were extended
from time to time. Be that as it may, the dam fact is that they are
continuing right from 1988 upto this time, i.e. for periods ranging
between 7 to 11 years approximately. But they have been denied the
benefit of SRO 64/94 only on the basis that they are casual labourers.
Secondly, Mr. Attar, AAG has admitted the fact that there is no
difference between the wages payable to the daily -wagers and casual
labourers. Even the Apex Court in case "State of Haryana v. Piara Singh"
(1992 (4) SCC 118), has observed as under: -
"So far as the work -charged employees and casual labourer are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer if continued for a fairly long shell -say two or three years a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligation for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. Security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.