S.No. 32 Regular List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RP 11/2023 in [WP(C) 588/2020] c/w CCP(S) 520/2022 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …Petitioner/ Appellant(s) Through: Mr. T.M. Shamsi, DSGI with Ms. Shagufta Maqbool, CGC & Mr. Faizan Ganie, CGC V/s SAJAD QADIR AND ORS. …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. S.A.Makroo, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Danish, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE. ORDER 25.02.2025 1. The instant review petition has been filed by the petitioners herein against judgment dated 24.03.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 588/2022. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant review petition would reveal that the private respondents herein filed the WP(C) No. 588/2022 supra before this Court on the premise that they are working as casual labourers for long years with the Army and are engaged in loading and unloading of essential supplies of food items and other consumable items required for the consumption of Army Jawans and Officers and are being paid wages only at the rate of Rs. 487/- per day, despite the fact that the nature of work performed by them is same as is discharged by the regular porters or the seasonal porters or even the regular group-C employees of the department. 3. The petitioners on the aforesaid basis laid the foundation of their case in the petition supra and prayed that the respondents be commanded to pay wages/salary to them at par with the other porters of the Army on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. 4. The respondents in the writ petition supra and the petitioners herein opposed the petition and in the reply filed thereto contended that there are 63 posts of permanent labourers, but only 51 labourers are posted and on account of the deficiency of the permanent labourers and due to excess work load on few days casual labourers are hired and they are paid as per the Nerrick rates fixed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment from time to time and that these casual labourers employed by the respondents approached the department for payment of minimum pay at the rate of Rs. 18000/- plus DA w.e.f 01.01.2016 as per the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission, however, the office of 15 Crops vide letter dated 03.07.2019, informed that since the engagement of casual labourers is being done for work which is of casual or seasonal or intermittent in nature and the said work not being a full time work for which regular post can be created, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to equal pay for equal work. 5. The writ court after the considering the case set up by the petitioners in the petition and the reply filed thereto by the respondents, in terms of the judgment under review, directed the respondent 6 in the petition to reconsider the matter for the grant of equal pay for equal work to the causal labourers employed as porters in the light of observation made above un-influenced by its earlier order dated 03.07.2019, keeping in mind various office memorandums referred to above or any other office memorandum which may be relevant and is placed before him and the observations of the Supreme Court in Yashpal’s case supra and that the respondent 6 shall consider and pass a speaking order in this regard within a period of three months. 6. The petitioners herein in the instant review petition have averred that at para 10 of the judgment, the Court has made an observation suggesting that the respondents before it have admitted the status of the writ petitioners, when no such admission had been made in the reply filed by the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Since the petitioners herein have maintained the instant review petition fundamentally on the basis of the observations made by the writ court at para 10 of the judgment under review, as such, a reference thereto becomes imperative hereunder. However, a reference to para 9 of the judgment as well would be relevant hereunder:- “Para 9 The respondents have filed objections/reply in opposition to the writ petition. It has been stated that the Depot of 15 Crops Z receives stocks from base depots for distribution to the forward depots. There are 63 posts of permanent labourers but only 51 labourers are posted. Due to the deficiency of permanent labourers and due to excess workload on few days casual labourers are hired and they are paid as per the Nerrick rates fixed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment from time to time. These casual labourers employed by the respondents have approached the Department for the payment of minimum pay @ 18,000/- plus D.A w.e.f 01.01.2016 as per the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission. The office of the 15 Crops vide letter dated 03.07.2019 informed them that since the engagement of causal labourers is being done for work which is casual or seasonal or intermittent in nature and the said work is not a full time work for which regular posts can be created, as such, they are not entitled to equal pay for equal work. Para 10. This apart, the respondents have not assigned any reasons whatsoever for denying payment of equal pay for equal work to the petitioners despite the fact that admittedly though they are being employed on daily wages they are working continuously for long time and are discharging duties of the same nature as the regular porters or the seasonal porters of the Department”. 8. As is manifest from above, at para 9, the writ court has extensively referred to the case set up by the respondents in opposition to the writ petition that the writ petitioners came to be engaged due to the deficiency of permanent labourers and owing to the excess work load on few days, and that such labourers are paid as per Nerrick rates fixed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment from time to time and also that the Office of 15 Crops vide letter dated 03.07.2019 informed them that since the engagement of casual labourers is being done for work which is of casual or season or intermittent in nature and not being a full time work for which regular posts can be created, the writ petitioners are not entitled to equal pay for equal work, and while taking cognizance of the said response of the respondents before the writ court filed to the writ petition, the writ court at para 10 supra has observed that “apart from the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, the respondents have not assigned any reason whatsoever for denying equal pay for equal work to the petitioners, in that, while observing that the petitioners admittedly were being employed on daily wages and were working continuously for long time and discharging duties of same nature, as that of the regular porters or seasonal porters of the Department, the court has never attributed any admission to the petitioners herein as is being projected. The court in fact has referred to the admission of engagement of the petitioners as labourers by the respondents and their continuous working, therefore, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that the Court erred or recorded a wrong admission of the petitioners herein. 9. In view of the settled position of law laid down by the Apex court in a series of judgments that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order and re-hear a case as the same is not permissible in law and that a review constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered and that a review is not an appeal in disguise. It is also the consistent view of the Apex Court that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view, and that, the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and that permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice and in absence of such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. 10. For what has been observed, considered and analysed hereinabove, the instant review petition is held to be grossly misconceived and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court noticed in the preceding paras, the review petition merits dismissal, and is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Dismissed. CCP(S) No. 520/2022 Registry is directed to segregate the contempt and list it separately on 14.03.2025. List on 14th March 2025. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 25.02.2025 “S.Nuzhat”