1 WP(C) No. 308/2024 S. No. 97 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 308/2024 Reserved on 02.05.2025 Pronounced on: 29.07.2025 Roobia Ara …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Shabir Ahmad Budoo, Advocate Vs. UT of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner through the medium of instant petition is seeking a direction upon respondents to release her unpaid wages w.e.f. July 2019 to date. She also seeks a direction upon respondents to regularize her services. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that she has been initially engaged as Computer Operator for 89 days on need basis in the year 2013 in the office of respondent No.5, Executive Engineer, Civil Construction Division-II, Ganderbal (NGHEP), Kashmir and thereafter, extension orders were issued from time to time. Subsequently, her services were disbanded by respondent No.7 w.e.f. November 2014 in terms of order dated 16.07.2014. Since the wages for the period petitioner worked were not paid to her, she made a representation to respondent No.4 for her re-engagement and also for release of her wages. The petitioner claims to have been reengaged by respondent No.4 w.e.f. November 2 WP(C) No. 308/2024 2016 and since then she is working in the office of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Thereafter, petitioner has moved another representation for release of her wages as well as for continuing her services without any break, but her wages have not been released. 3. It is averred in the petition that an identical petition bearing WP(C) No. 2133/2022 titled as Mohit Dogra and Os. V. UT of J&K and Ors. has been filed by casual labourers in Jammu Wing of this Court. The Court vide order dated 10.04.2023 directed respondents 1&2 to consider the claim of petitioners for release of emoluments to which they would be found entitled to within a period of two weeks and that consequently respondent No.2 released the wages of said petitioners. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the wages of petitioners in WP(C) No. 2133/2022 have been released by respondents and prays for release of petitioner’s wages on the same analogy as has been adopted in the case of petitioners in WP(C) No. 2133/2022. 5. Respondents in their objections have stated that services of petitioner were dispensed with when she was no longer required. It is also stated in the objections that respondent No.4 had no competence or jurisdiction to direct reengagement of petitioner and the same has been done purely on pick and choose basis on the recommendations of local MLA, as such, the same cannot be countenanced under law in any manner and being void ab initio cannot confer any right upon the petitioner. The services of petitioner have been utilized on need basis that too after the ban imposed by the Government vide Finance Department Circular dated 24.05.2019. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 29.01.2021 passed in LPA No. 269/2019 3 WP(C) No. 308/2024 titled State of Jammu and Kashmir and Os. vs. Abdul Ahad Lone and Ors., has held that after issuance of the Government order, the departments had no authority to extend their engagement or permit them to continue on need basis as the authority to make engagements stood withdrawn by the Government. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. Petitioner relies upon a letter no.JKSPDC/ADM/CJ/767 dated 17th April 2013 because by virtue thereof she has been engaged in respondent- Corporation. Contents of letter read as under: “I am directed to refer to your letters No.CE/NgHEP/Gbl/Adm/ 2690-92 dated 19.03.2013 and No.CE/NGHEP/Gbl/Adm/2697-98 dated 22.03.2013 regarding the above subject and to state that till such time the process for recruitment for various posts which have been advertised is completed, you are requested to engage Miss Roobia Aara D/o Shri Ali Mohammad Parray R/o Pandach, Ganderbal who has passed three year Diploma in Electrical Engineering through the State Board of Technical Education, in the New Ganderbal HEP on casual/need basis for 89 days in the first instance. A copy of her application duly endorsed by the Hon’ble Chairman, JKSPDC, along with photostat copies of the qualification certificates is also enclosed.” 8. It is evident from communication dated 17th April 2013 (Annexure III to writ petition) that engagement of petitioner had been made on casual/ need basis and till the process for recruitment to various posts was completed. Extensions to casual/need based engagement of petitioner were made, but by virtue of letter dated 16th July 2014 (Annexure VII to writ petition) it was conveyed to Chief Engineer, NGHEP, Ganderbal, that a casual labour was engaged purely on need basis and had to be on the master roll for payment of wages and that no engagement order was required to be issued in favour of casual worker. Chief Engineer, NGHEP, Ganderbal, was advised that petitioner, who had been engaged 4 WP(C) No. 308/2024 on need basis, be paid remuneration/wages against progress of work on the basis of mater roll for the days she actually worked ensuring that services of incumbent were dispensed with when no longer required. Thus, extensions to engagement of petitioner had been given as and when required. 9. In terms of Government Order no.43-F of 2015 dated 17th March 2015, the authority to engage casual/seasonal labourer to various departments as delegated vide Government Order nos. 239-F of 2005 dated 29th January 2005, 138-F of 2013 dated 23rd May 2013, and 105-PD of 2010 dated 25th October 2010, has been withdrawn. In terms of Government Order no.384-GAD of 2015 dated 17th March 2015, all reemployment orders issued by various Government Departments have been revoked; all engagements/arrangements made by different departments/public sector undertakings/boards/autonomous bodies under any scheme against sanctioned posts without selection procedure even on contractual basis, shall cease to exist and any other engagement/ arrangement made by departments/public sector undertakings/boards/ autonomous bodies, at their own level, shall also be revoked and shall cease to exist. 10. The instant like cases have already been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of cases/appeals, with lead case, LPA no.269/2019 titled as State of J&K and others v. Abdul Ahad Lone and connected matters, vide judgement dated 29th January 2021. Paragraphs 12 to 17 are reproduced as under: “12. From a perusal of Government Order No.43-F of 2015, it clearly transpires that the authority to engage casual/seasonal labourers delegated by the Government to various departments 5 WP(C) No. 308/2024 including the department of agriculture has been withdrawn with immediate effect and as a natural consequence of withdrawal of the authority, none of the authorized departments including the department of agriculture was left with any authority to engage the casual/seasonal labourers in their departments. 13. Whether Government Order No.43-F of 2015 is prospective or retrospective is not likely to change the position in any manner. Admittedly, the engagement of the writ petitioners, as need base labourers to perform the duties in different Sheep Breeding Farms, was temporary in nature, initial engagement order being only for a period of 89 days, though the engagement of the writ petitioners has been extended from time to time by giving them a break of one day after every spell of 89 days. That being the position, on or after the issuance of Government Order No.43-F of 2015, the appellant- department had no authority to extend their engagements or permit them to continue on need basis for the reason that the authority under which the writ petitioners were being engaged from time to time stood withdrawn by the Government. 14. Undoubtedly, as rightly held by the Writ Court, Government Order No.43-F of 2015 is prospective in operation and would have the effect of taking away the authority of the appellants to extend the engagement of the writ petitioners or to continue their engagements further. The Writ Court has not appreciated the Government Order from this perspective and, has thus, erroneously held that the services of the writ petitioners were not liable to be disengaged or discontinued by application of Govt. Order No.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015. Govt. Order No.384- GAD of 2015 dated 17.03.2015 is clearly not attracted in the case on hand, for, the same pertains to the engagements/arrangements made by different Government Departments, PSUs and other autonomous bodies under schemes against the sanctioned posts and without any selection process. In the instant case, the engagement of the writ petitioners was neither under any scheme nor against any sanctioned post(s) and, therefore, applicability of Govt. Order No.384-GAD of 2015 is clearly ruled out. To the similar effect is the clarification issued by the GAD with regard to the import of Govt. Order No.384-GAD of 2015. 15. That apart, the services of the writ petitioners, as is apparent from the record, stood disengaged on the date the writ petitions were entertained and interim directions were passed by the Writ Court. The mere fact that the engagement of the writ petitioners was on need basis and without following any due process of selection would justify their disengagement by the appellants. The authority delegated to the appellants by the Government in terms of Govt. Order No.239-F of 2005 dated 29.01.2005 stood withdrawn and, therefore, the appellants were devoid of any authority or competence to extend or continue the engagement of the writ petitioners further. That being the position, the appellants were well within their powers to disengage the writ petitioners. The direction of the Writ Court to allow the writ petitioners to continue on ‘need basis’ arrangement was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. We are, therefore, of the view that having regard to the nature of engagements of the writ petitioners, no right was vested in 6 WP(C) No. 308/2024 them to continue in the department indefinitely, more so, when the authority under which the writ petitioners were being engaged from time to time stood withdrawn by the Government in terms of Govt. Order No.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015. 17. Mr. M.A.Wani, learned counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners has raised the issue of applicability of SRO 520 of 2017 and urges that the writ petitioners having been engaged before 17.03.2015 were entitled to the benefit of regular engagement under the said SRO. This issue has been raised for the first time during the hearing of these appeals. We could not find any whisper about SRO 520 of 2017 in the pleadings that were before the Writ Court. Applicability of SRO 520 of 2017 may involve determination of other allied questions of fact and law, which this Court hearing appeal may not be able to determine in the absence of pleadings. We, therefore, keep this issue open for the writ petitioners to agitate before appropriate forum by way of appropriate proceedings. Nothing said in this judgment shall prejudice their right to claim the benefit of SRO 520 of 2017, if that is attracted in their case.” 11. It has been in clear cut terms observed by the Division Bench that the mere fact that the engagement of the writ petitioners was on need basis and without following any due process of selection would justify their disengagement. The authority delegated to the department stood withdrawn in terms of Government Order no.239-F of 2005 dated 29.01.2005 and, therefore, the department was devoid of any authority or competence to extend or continue engagement of the writ petitioners further. That being the position, the department was well within its powers to disengage writ petitioners. It has been emphasized by the Division Bench that the direction of the Writ Court to allow writ petitioners to continue on ‘need basis’ arrangement was not justified. 12. The Division Bench has held that having regard to the nature of engagements of writ petitioners, no right was vested in them to continue in the department indefinitely, more so, when the authority under which writ petitioners were engaged from time to time stood 7 WP(C) No. 308/2024 withdrawn by virtue of Government Order no.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015. 13. All that has been said, observed and held by the Division Bench in State of J&K v. Abdul Ahad Lone (supra) squarely applies to the case in hand and, therefore, writ petition is dismissed. Insofar as unpaid wages are concerned, respondents shall pay and release whatever is due to petitioner. 14. Needless to say that petitioner is to free to avail appropriate remedy as may be available to her by invoking the provisions of SRO 520 of 2017 provided her case falls and comes within the purview of the said SRO. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 29.07.2025 Manzoor Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No