1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No. 4249/2025 in LPA No. 151/2025 CM No. 4250/2025 Reserved on 16.07.2025 Pronounced on 22. 07.2025 Mohammad Maqbool Dar and Others. ……...Appellant(s) Through: Ms. Saima Mehboob, Advocate Versus Union Territory of J&K and Others. …..Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE J U D G M E N T Per Oswal ‘J’ CM No. 4249/2025 01. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 63 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 02. CM disposed of. LPA No. 151/2025 01. Initially, the appellants after their disengagement had filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 2757/2015, for commanding the respondents therein, to re-engage them on the analogy of fresh engagement of employees in the Sheep and Husbandry Department, and to consider their claim for regularization after re-engaging them. The said writ petition came to be Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 2 disposed of by the learned writ Court vide order dated 27.04.2017, by commanding the respondents therein, to consider the claim of the appellants for their re-engagement as casual labourers if there is need, and if they are already engaged at all, their statutory rights be protected. 02. Yet another writ petition bearing SWP No. 2005/2017, came to be preferred by the appellants, contending therein that after disposal of writ petition bearing SWP No. 2757/2015, it came to their knowledge that certain casual labourers, who were engaged after the engagement of the appellants were being recommended for regular engagement. The appellants, as such, sought parity qua the casual labourers, recommended for regular engagement. The said writ petition also came to be disposed of by the learned writ Court vide order dated 04.10.2017, whereby the appellants were granted liberty to submit a detailed representation with respondent No. 2 therein, who in turn was to accord consideration to the same, in light of the Cabinet Decision and the orders passed from time to time. 03. As the order dated 04.10.2017, was not complied with by the respondents, the appellants preferred a contempt petition bearing CPSW No. 914/2017, wherein the respondents submitted that the consideration order dated 08.02.2018, has been passed, as such, the contempt proceedings were closed. 04. Thereafter, a writ petition bearing SWP No. 1450/2018, was filed by the appellants for assailing the order dated 08.02.2018, issued by the respondent No. 1, whereby the claim of the appellants for their re- Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 3 engagement as casual labourers was rejected. Vide interim order dated 06.07.2018, the respondents were again directed to consider the claim of the petitioners afresh and in pursuance thereof, another consideration order dated 04.09.2018, came to be issued by the respondents, thereby rejecting the claim of the appellants. The appellants being aggrieved of the order dated 04.09.2018, assailed the same through the medium of yet another writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 679/2021, on the similar grounds, as raised in SWP No. 1450/2018. 05. It was urged before the learned writ Court that it is the stand of the respondents that the appellants were dis-engaged in the year 2001, but in terms of communication dated 24.11.2008, it has been stated that the casual labourers working in the district stood disengaged in the year 2006. Rather, the fact remains that the appellants were disengaged on 24.11.2008, as is evident from the letter dated 19.06.2017, issued by the Sheep Husbandry Officer, Pulwama. The appellants also sought parity qua other casual labourers working in the department, who were either engaged with or after the engagement of appellants. 06. The respondents in their response objected to the claim of the appellants on the ground that for the same cause, the appellants have been filing writ petitions one after another and their claim for re-engagement was already considered and the case of the appellants was not found to be similar to the persons, who had been continuously working with the department without any break, unlike the appellants who had huge breaks. In fact, the appellants were disengaged in the year 2001, in terms of Government order Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 4 No. 144-GAD of 2001 dated 02.02.2001. The respondents also placed reliance upon the Judgment passed in case Abdul Rashid Wani &Ors. Vs. State of J&K & Ors. whereby, the similar claims were rejected. 07. A supplementary affidavit was also filed by the appellant No. 4, that he was engaged in the year 2006 and had received the salary upto 2010. 08. The learned writ Court after considering the matter, dismissed both the writ petitions bearing SWP No. 1450/2018 and WP(C) No. 679/2021 vide order dated 01.03.2025. 09. The appellants being aggrieved of the order dated 01.03.2025 (supra), have challenged the same primarily on the grounds that the learned writ Court has failed to appreciate the plea of parity raised by the appellants and that the respondents had taken contradictory stands vis-à-vis disengagement of the appellants, but the learned writ Court despite taking note of that, did not appreciate the same in its right perspective and dismissed the writ petition erroneously. 10. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 11. This is an admitted case of the appellants that they were disengaged. There is a communication dated 03.08.2017, addressed by the respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1, wherein it is categorically stated that appellant Nos. 1 to 5 have worked up to 03/ 2006, 01/2001, 01/2001, 09/2006 and 12/2001 respectively, and thereafter they are not on the rolls of the department. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 5 12. It is the stand of the respondents that all the appellants were disengaged in the year 2001, but the communication dated 03.08.2017, (supra) clearly demonstrates that the appellant Nos. 1 and 4 have worked till March, 2006 and September, 2006 respectively, whereas the appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 have worked till January 2001 and December 2001, as the case may be. Merely taking contradictory stands by the respondents in respect of disengagement of the appellants would not wash the guilt of ‘delay and laches’ on the part of the appellants in availing the remedy belatedly. 13. The appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 preferred the first writ petition bearing SWP No. 2757/2015, after fourteen years of their disengagement, whereas the appellants 1 and 4 filed their first writ petition, as mentioned above, after nine years of their disengagement. The appellants, if at all were aggrieved of inaction on the part of the appellants in respect of their disengagement, ought to have approached the learned writ Court within a reasonable period. By approaching the Court, after 9 and 14 long years of their alleged disengagement, the appellants in fact had tried to give a new lease of life to the dead cause. It is settled law that mere passing of consideration order cannot instill a new life in a stale and dead claim [See Union of India and Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh” (2008) 8 SCC 648 (Para-7) and “C. Jacob versus Director of Geology and Mining and Other” (2008) 10 SCC 115 (Pars-10 to 13)]. 14. Further it is urged by the appellants that the learned writ Court has not considered the plea of parity. After examining the record, we find that in the initial consideration order dated 08.02.2018, it was provided that Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 6 whenever there is requirement for re-engagement, the appellants shall be given first preference. Be that as it may, the learned writ Court vide its interim order dated 06.07.2018, directed the respondents to consider the claim of the appellants afresh, and the respondents considered the same and passed the order dated 04.09.2018. In the order dated 04.09.2018, it is stated that Annexure-G relied upon by the appellants, has not been found to be genuine. Besides, it is also stated by the respondents in their objections that the other casual labourers were regularly working with the department and there was no break in their services, which was not the case of the appellants. 15. Otherwise also, the employer is the best judge of its needs and as such, cannot be forced to employ a person, when he has no need of such employee. 16. We have examined the Judgment passed by the learned writ Court, we find that the learned writ Court has rightly considered the controversy at hand and there is neither illegality nor impropriety in the Judgment dated 01.03.2025 passed by the learned writ Court. 17. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal along with all connected CM(s). (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 22.07.2025 “Mohammad Yasin Dar” Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document