S. No. 59 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 2656/2023 CM(6308/2023) AABID HUSSAIN PEER …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Umiya Zehra, Advocate vice Mr. Mir Majid Bashir, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Alla-ud-din Ganaie, AAG Ms. Urba Naseer, Advocate vice Mr. M.Y. Bhat, Sr. Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE O R D E R 03.06.2026 1. The petitioner has challenged Order No. 684 DAHK of 2023 dated 13.09.2023 issued by respondent No.3, whereby his engagement as Paravet under CCS ESVHD MVU Scheme has been cancelled ab initio on the ground of adverse CID report regarding his character and antecedents. 2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since engagement of the petitioner was only for one year out of which he has worked for about six months with the respondents, as such, he would not press for the relief relating to quashment of impugned order dated 13.09.2023. However, the petitioner has confined this writ petition to the extent of the relief relating to release of unpaid wages. 3. No reply has been filed by respondents 3 to 5. In terms of order dated 02.09.2025, last and final opportunity was granted to the said respondents to file the reply. Since reply has not been filed by the said respondents, their right to do so is closed. 4. As already stated, the petitioner has confined this writ petition to the relief relating to payment of wages for the period during which he has worked with the respondent/Animal Husbandary Department. In the engagement order, there was a specific direction that hiring of the Paravets shall be subject to the satisfactory character and antecedent verification report from CID including the genuineness of qualification and other relevant documents. The disengagement of the petitioner on the grounds of adverse CID report may be justified on account of aforesaid condition attached to his engagement order but the non-payment of wages for the period for which he has actually worked with the respondents cannot be legally justified as the same would be violative of petitioner’s right under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 3 to 5 to release unpaid wages of the petitioner for the period for which he has actually worked with them. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is served by the petitioner upon the said respondents failing which the outstanding amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till its realization. Disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 03.06.2026 Misba Sajad