HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2593/2024 Sham Lal …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. vs Union Territory of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Adv. vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 09.07.2025 ORAL 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner herein has pleaded that he donated 01 kanal of his land falling under survey No. 980 situated in Village, Kotli Manotrian, Tehsil Katra, District Reasi to the official respondents for construction of a Water Tank and simultaneously applied to the respondents for his appointment in lieu thereof, whereupon the petitioner herein came to be engaged in Bhaga Section of PHE Division, Reasi and though the salary for such working came to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents from time to time, however, the same was stopped on account of non uploading of the data of the petitioner on NIC Portal due to some technical problems and though the petitioner had been continuously working with the respondents, yet the respondents did not release the salary in favour of the petitioner, which constrained the petitioner to file WP(C) No. 2630/2023 before this Court which came to be disposed of on 16.10.2023 by directing the respondents to consider the uploading of the data of the petitioner on NIC Portal and that despite the service of the said order upon the respondents, the respondents did not take any steps for uploading the data of the petitioner 69 2 WP(C) No. 2593/2024 on NIC Portal and instead in a contempt petition filed for violation of the said order of the Court, the respondents in the compliance report filed to the said contempt petition stated that the services of the petitioner stands disengaged in terms of order dated 03.04.2023, whereupon the said contempt petition came to be disposed of on 18.10.2024, providing a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 03.04.2023. 2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 03.04.2023 in the instant petition and while seeking its quashment has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to upload the data of the petitioner on the NIC Portal. 3. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents, wherein it is being denied that the petitioner came to be engaged in lieu of the land claimed to have been donated by him. It is, however, being stated that the petitioner was engaged on need basis as a casual labourer, strictly on seasonal and temporary basis contingent upon the availability of work and operational requirements. It is being next stated that in compliance to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, a thorough examination of the case of the petitioner was undertaken and it came to be found that the data of the petitioner has not been uploaded on the NIC Portal not being available in the shape of requisite documents of the petitioner, within the stipulated time frame in the year 2017, rendering it impossible to enroll the petitioner thereof, as a consequence of which, the petitioner along with similarly situated need base workers came to be disengaged besides owing to the reason of no need of the services of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 WP(C) No. 2593/2024 4. Perusal of the record would reveal that the disengagement order impugned in the instant writ petition by the petitioner has been issued prior to the filing of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, which fact seemingly has been suppressed by the petitioner even at the time of filing of earlier writ petition on 11.10.2023. The plea of the petitioner that he came to be engaged by the respondents in lieu of the land donated by him for construction of a Water Tank, is specifically being denied by the respondents, so much so, the petitioner in support of the said plea has not placed on record any documentary proof suggesting that the petitioner came to be engaged as such by the respondents. Besides, it also gets revealed from the record available on the file that the second prayer made in the instant petition by the petitioner in essence has been the same and similar prayer the petitioner had sought in the earlier writ petition, as such, the petitioner in law can seek the similar prayer in the instant petition in view of the disposal of his said earlier petition on 16.10.2023. 5. In view of the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion. 6. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and is, accordingly dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE Jammu 09.07.2025 Rakesh PS Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Rakesh Kumar 2025.07.15 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document