Serial No. 22 Reg. Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 2030/2023 JAVID AHMAD WAGAY AND ORS. … Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. S.R. Khawar, Advocate with Mr. Attomosh Rashid, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faheem Shah, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 18.08.2025 1. Petitioners herein in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, stated to have been working as casual labourers/daily wagers on need basis with the respondents engaged in the year 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2011 and despite having worked continuously as such the respondents did not pay wages to the petitioners w.e.f 01.02.2019, although the genuineness and legitimacy of the claim of the petitioners qua their wages was got authenticated and verified by the respondents from time to time including in the year 2020 in terms of communication No. JKPDC/Tec/E/663-65 dated 29.05/2020 addressed by Executive Engineer (E) JKPDC, Srinagar to the Chief Engineer, Generation Wing PDC, Srinagar, wherein it had been in regard to the disbursement of the wages amongst need-based workers of USHP-II, Kangan been stated that a fresh cash requisition process be initiated for getting the allotment of the wages for 40 need based workers including the 37 petitioners herein figuring in the list drawn and framed by the Executive Engineer, Generation Division USHP-II, Kangan reflecting therein the said list the respective dates of engagement of the need based workers including the petitioners herein, the rate of the wages payable to them inasmuch as the number of months the said workers have had worked as also the amount of wages payable to them. 2. It is also stated that the respondents seemingly have withheld the wages of the petitioners on account of some illegal engagements of need based workers purportedly made by the Executive Engineer USHP-II, Kangan Ganderbal having resulted into registration of an FIR No. 05/2022 against the said Executive Engineer and in which list of the engages, the petitioners did not figure. 3. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents, wherein it is being admitted that the petitioners were engaged as need based workers and not as casual or daily rated workers while simultaneously stating that the said engagement of the petitioners as need based workers, however, cannot be confirmed on account of the pendency of the investigation in the matter by Anti-Corruption Bureau, as the said Bureau has seized all the related documents. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Mr. Faheem Shah, learned GA, appearing counsel for the respondents at the very outset raised a preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the petition, and would contend that the question of payment of wages claimed by the petitioners cannot be maintained by the petitioners in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in presence of the statutory remedy provided in this regard under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and thus, would insist that the petition is liable to be dismissed on account of availability of the statutory remedy. 5. Mr. Syed Khawar, learned appearing counsel for the petitioners, however, on the contrary would controvert the aforesaid preliminary objection of the counsel for the respondents and would submit that the availability of a statutory remedy is not an absolute bar for invoking extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court involved by the petitioners for seeking release of their earned wages withheld by the respondents without any lawful justification being violative of the fundamental right to life and livelihood of the petitioners. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondents, it is deemed appropriate in the first instance to advert to the said preliminary objection. 7. Law in regard to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is well settled. It is consistent view of the Courts that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the High Courts is discretionary and no limits can be put or placed upon such discretion. The Apex Court in case titled as “Sharma S.N. Vs. Bipen Kumar Tewari reported in AIR 1970 (1) SCC 353” has held that the exercise of writ jurisdiction vested in High Courts under Article 226 is a rule of discretion and not of exclusion of jurisdiction. In “State of U.P.& Ors. Vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd reported in 1977 (2) SCC 724”, the Apex Court has held that the existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution and that existence of an adequate or suitable alternate remedy available to a litigant is merely a factor which a Court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution will consider for exercising discretion to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in a given case although may not entertain a petition inter alia on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy, but the rule cannot be said to be of universal application, and, that despite existence of an alternate remedy, a writ court may exercise writ jurisdiction where the Court or Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction or for enforcement of a fundamental right or if there has been violation of principles of natural justice or where the vires of an Act is in question. 8. Having regard to the nature of case setup by the petitioners in the instant petition noticed in the preceding paras, inasmuch as the aforesaid position and principles of law qua the exercise of writ jurisdiction, and the aforesaid preliminary objection of the counsel for the respondents, it can safely be concluded that the aforesaid preliminary objection is not sustainable in that the claim of the petitioners relates to the payment of their wages by the respondents and directly affects the right, livelihood and right to life. 9. 9. Insofar as the claim lodged by the petitioners in the instant petition, qua the wages stated to have been withheld by the respondents since 01.02.2019 for the services rendered by the petitioners with the respondents on need basis, which services of the petitioners according to them stand duly verified, endorsed and authenticated by the respondents themselves from time to time including by drawing and framing the list of the said need based workers and their claims for payment of wages consisting of the petitioners herein as well letter dated 29.05.2020, the respondents in the reply filed to the petition have not anywhere either disputed or refuted the said verified claim of the petitioners, thus leaving no option for the Court except to draw an adverse inference against the respondents in this regard that the respondents in essence have admitted the claim of the petitioners set up in the instant petition qua the payment of withheld wages since 01.02.2019, and not paid to them on account of the pendency of the FIR wherein the petitioners are admittedly not said to be involved in. 10. For what has been observed, considered and analysed hereinabove, the instant petition succeeds, as a consequence whereof, the respondents are commanded to release the withheld wages of the petitioners from February 2019 without any fail and further delay preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced by the petitioners before the respondents and in the event the respondents fail to carry out the aforesaid direction within the aforesaid stipulated period stipulated, the respondents shall be liable to pay an interest upon the withheld wages of the petitioners @ 7% per annum from the date of expiry of aforesaid 8 weeks till the date of its actual payment to the petitioners. 11. Disposed of. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 18.08.2025 “S.Nuzhat” Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether the order is reporting Yes/No