Page 1 of 4 WP(C) No. 398/2023 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Pronounced on : 09.04.2026 Uploaded on : 15.04.2026 WP(C) No. 398/2023 Puran Chand & Anr. …..Petitioners Through: Mr. Ajay Abrol, Advocate Vs Jammu Municipal Corporation, Th. Its Commissioner, Jammu & Anr. .….Respondents Through: Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER (09.04.2026) 01. The core of the two petitioners’ individual grievance in the writ petition is that on account of their respective service on Daily Wage basis w.e.f. 2012 and 2013 respectively as Sanitation Workers in Municipal Corporation, Jammu, they were entitled to be considered for regularization along with the similarly engaged and situated Sanitation Workers on Daily Wage basis who came to be regularized. 02. The petitioners’ representation for the purposed file has remained unconsidered at the end of the Municipal Corporation, Jammu and, therefore, the petitioners came forward with a prayer for writ of mandamus unto the writ respondents to regularize the petitioners’ service as Serial No. 153 Supplementary List-1 Page 2 of 4 WP(C) No. 398/2023 Sanitation Worker on the analogy of other similarly situated workers who became beneficiaries in terms of an Order No. 54 of 2023 dated 17.01.2023. 03. Reply to the writ petition has been filed from the end of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Jammu, in which it is said that the petitioners’ engagement was on need basis for which their wages were being released by the Engineering Wing out of the funds sanctioned/released after accord of the administrative approval but their names were not mentioned in the administrative approval whereas the sanitation workers (Casual Labourers/Safaikaramcharis) who came to be regularized in terms of said order dated 17.01.2023 were engaged on casual basis in the year 2012, 2013 and 2014 after following due selection process. 04. Except for a bald statement that there was a selection process related to engagement of sanitation workers of 2012, 2013 and 2014 who later on became beneficiaries of regularization in terms of an order dated 17.01.2023, there is no supporting document accompanying the reply/response to the writ petition from the end of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jammu, to exhibit the process by virtue of which regularization exercise was undertaken qua the casual basis engaged workers of Page 3 of 4 WP(C) No. 398/2023 2012, 2013 and 2014 said to be engaged by following due selection process. 05. Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that without venturing into adjudication on merits the claim of the petitioners for their regularization, the first call is to be taken by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jammu, by dealing expressly with the respective case of the two petitioners as to how and why they are not eligible to be considered for regularization, in case they are still continuing to be on the pay roll of Municipal Corporation, Jammu, by serving as sanitation workers thereby serving the public cause. 06. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jammu, to consider the present writ petition of the petitioners as a representation and dispose of it within a period of three months by or before 09.07.2026. 07. The consideration order whatsoever may come to be passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jammu, shall be bearing reasons in the factual backdrop of the claim of the petitioners as set up in the writ petition. 08. Disposed of. Page 4 of 4 WP(C) No. 398/2023 09. A copy of this order be provided to Mr. Mayank Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Jammu. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 09.04.2026 SUNIL Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable ? : Yes/No