S. No. 55 Regular List ,,,HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No.2162/2020 CCP(S) No.81/2021 Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat and another …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.M.Y.Bhat, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sajid Ahmad, Advocate. V/s UT of J&K and Others … ..Respondent(s) Through : Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 26.05.2025 1. The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have sought a direction upon the respondents that they should be allowed to continue as Instructors in the Boutique Technology Center of Government Women’s College, Baramulla. A further direction upon the respondents, that the petitioners should be treated as skilled workers and paid wages in terms of the notification issued by the Government under the payment of Minimum Wages Act, has also been sought. WP(C) No. 2162/2020, CCP(S)No. 81/2021 2 | P a g e 2. According to the petitioners in May, 2015 Minister of Education issued direction for introducing vocational course in various colleges of Baramulla. Accordingly, Government Women’s College Baramulla was directed to rename the existing vocational course “Cutting & Tailoring Vocational Course” to “Boutique Technology” with a further direction that the Boutique be run on commercial lines. It has been submitted that petitioner No.1 was engaged on 23.06.2015 and petitioner No.2 was engaged on 01.11.2015. It has been also submitted that the engagement of the petitioners has been extended from time to time by the authorities of respondent College by issuing orders in this regard. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioners were working and performing their job to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities and the students as on date of filing of the writ petition. According to the petitioners they have been paid wages as revised from time to time. In the first instance they were paid wages Rs.100/- per hour and thereafter Rs.300/- per day w.e.f year 2016. In the year 2017 their wages were reduced to Rs.150/- per day and thereafter it was enhanced to Rs.225/- per day w.e.f year 2018. It has been submitted that at present petitioners are receiving wages at the rate of Rs.6750/- per month. WP(C) No. 2162/2020, CCP(S)No. 81/2021 3 | P a g e 4. It has been submitted that the petitioners are now being harassed by the authorities of respondent College, as they intend to replace them by some other persons and their wages are also not being paid. 5. The aforesaid action of the respondents is being challenged by the petitioners on the ground that, the engagement of the petitioners is co-terminus with the scheme and unless scheme comes to an end, their engagement cannot be dispensed with. It has been further contended that the petitioners cannot be replaced by another set of contractual staff and they can only be removed if regular appointment is made. It has also been contended that the respondents are duty bound to release the wages in favour of the petitioners in accordance with notification issued under Minimum Wages Act and at present they are eligible to receive wages at the rate of Rs.500/-per day. 6. The respondents in their reply have submitted that under the directions of Minister of Education, a Boutique Centre outside College was established and said Boutique Centre was to run on commercial lines. It has been further submitted that the petitioners were being paid through the income generated out of the fee deposited by the beneficiaries and the programme was not the approved course of the College for its students. It WP(C) No. 2162/2020, CCP(S)No. 81/2021 4 | P a g e has been submitted that the role of the College was limited to that of a managerial body only to facilitate the programme. According to the respondents, the course is not a part of college curriculum for the students and the same is being conducted once or twice a year for a period of one month and maximum for three months only with a view to impart training to the students and others also. It has been further submitted that in order to safeguard interests of the petitioners they were being paid remuneration out of NSS fund without any burden on the college. 7. The respondents have taken a stand that now Higher Education Department has sanctioned the Boutique Technology/Fashion Designing as a skill course and same has been introduced in the curriculum w.e.f year 2001. It has been further submitted that after the inclusion of the course in the college curriculum, High Tech Machinery, mostly computerized, has been introduced for the first time. According to the respondents, only skilful and trained who can operate the machinery, can be engaged after following the rules through advertisement and selection. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. WP(C) No. 2162/2020, CCP(S)No. 81/2021 5 | P a g e 9. A perusal of the engagement order issued in favour of the petitioners would reveal that they have been engaged as Instructors purely on need basis with a view to train the students in the College in crafts. It is also clear from the engagement orders issued in favour of the petitioners from time to time that the honorarium/remuneration that is being paid to the petitioners, is debited to NSS Funds. The engagement orders further make it clear that the same do not confer any right upon the petitioners for their regular engagement. 10. From the aforesaid position, it is discernible that the petitioners have not been engaged by the respondent College either for manning the permanent positions or for imparting instructions to the students in regard to a course which is included in the curriculum. The fact that the petitioners have been engaged on need basis and they were being paid wages out of NSS Fund clearly shows that they were not holding any position on regular establishment of respondent College. This position is clarified by the respondents in their reply by stating that the Boutique Centre was opened in respondent College under the directions of Minister concerned for organizing programme of imparting training to students and other persons. It has been clarified by the respondents in their reply WP(C) No. 2162/2020, CCP(S)No. 81/2021 6 | P a g e that the course is not part of the college curriculum for the students. 11. Once it is found that the programme in respect of whom services of the petitioners have been engaged, is not a regular course included in the curriculum of the students of the College, the petitioners cannot claim continuance of their engagement. In fact, the respondents have come up with an assertion that it is only w.e.f year 2021 that Boutique Technology/Fashion Designing as a special course has been introduced in the college curriculum. It has been made clear by the respondents in their reply that it is only certified and skilful trainers who are eligible to be engaged for imparting education to the students in the aforesaid course programme, which has to be done after following the rules through proper advertisement and selection. Since the respondent College has decided to include Boutique Technology/Fashion Designing in the curriculum of its students and has decided to engage the Instructors/staff for the purpose of running said course on the basis of laid down criteria, the petitioners cannot claim any right of continuance of their engagement, as their engagement was purely on need basis in respect of a course which was not part of college curriculum of students. Therefore, the claim of WP(C) No. 2162/2020, CCP(S)No. 81/2021 7 | P a g e petitioners for their continuation of their engagement is without any substance. 12. That takes us to the question whether directions can be issued to the respondents to release the wages in favour of the petitioners. In this regard it is submitted that once the respondents have extracted work from the petitioners they cannot shy away from releasing their legitimately earned wages as per terms of their engagement. The respondents are legally bound to release the wages in favour of the petitioners for the period they have actually worked with them. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. While declining the prayer of petitioners for continuance of their engagement the respondents are directed to release the legitimately earned wages of the petitioners for the period for which they have actually worked with them in terms of their engagement orders. CCP(S) No.81/2021: In view of the final decision of the writ petition, the present contempt proceedings in respect of the interim order do not sustain. The same are closed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 26.05.2025 Sarveeda Nissar 1. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 28.05.2025 13:46