LPA No.197/2025 1 | P a g e Sr. No.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CJ Court LPA No.197/2025 CM No.5251/2025 Caveat No.2051/2025 ARIF AHMAD GANAI ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate, with Ms. Nighat Amin, Advocate. Vs. J&K STATE CABLE CAR CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. T. H. Khawaja, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Mouiz Imam, Advocate. Mr. Fukan Yaqub, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE JUDGMENT 20.08.2025 1) The appellant, working as a casual worker, had filed a writ petition WP(C) No.1169/2021 for commanding the respondents to allow him to discharge his duties at Cable Car Corporation Gulmarg Gandola and for commanding the respondents to explain as to why he was being compelled to perform his duties at Jammu Rope Way Peerkhoh without issuance of any order. In the writ petition it was contended that the respondents without issuing formal order cannot compel the petitioner to join at Jammu. 2) The claim of the appellant was objected to by the respondents by asserting that the Corporation had engaged LPA No.197/2025 2 | P a g e casual labourers from time to time on need basis at different sites in Kashmir Valley and with the operation of Jammu Ropeway project, instead of engaging new casual labourers in Jammu, thereby further burdening the finances of the Corporation, the respondent Corporation took a policy decision to rotate already engaged Kashmir based casual workers to Jammu to ensure operation of the Jammu Ropeway throughout the year. As a measure of incentive, the employees, besides their normal wages, are paid additional special daily wages of Rs.150/. They are also being paid transport charges as per normal fares at the time of joining at new place of posting and again at the time of joining back at the original place of posting. Further, the employees who are deputed to Jammu, are also provided free accommodation at Jammu. It was further stated that in an identical matter, the writ petition preferred by one of the casual workers was dismissed by the learned Writ Court. 3) The learned Writ Court, after taking note of the order dated 09.05.2022 passed in WP(C) No.924/2022, dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant in terms of order dated 28.07.2025. This is how the appellant has approached this Court for the purpose of assailing order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the learned Writ Court in WP(C) No.1169/2021, on the ground that with meagre wages, he LPA No.197/2025 3 | P a g e will not be able to do justice with his duties and his family and he can’t be compelled to work at Jammu without issuance of any formal order. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that without any formal order, the respondents cannot force the appellant to perform his duties at Jammu and further that the respondents have threatened to remove the appellant from the rolls of the Corporation because he had filed the writ petition and didn’t join at Jammu. 5) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that it is not only the appellant but also the other casual workers working with the respondents in Kashmir, who are being sent to Jammu for fixed period and this is being done to avoid the process of engaging new casual/need based workers at Jammu to avoid financial burden on the Corporation. 6) Heard and perused the record. 7) The sole ground which is urged before us is that without any formal order, the appellant is being forced to perform his duties at Jammu whereas the respondents, in their response, have, in uncertain terms, stated that all the casual workers are being sent to Jammu for performing duties at Jammu Ropeway project on rotational basis and LPA No.197/2025 4 | P a g e the appellant is not being discriminated. Further it is also the positive stand of the respondents that in addition to the wages already being paid to the casual workers deputed to perform duties at Jammu, they are also being paid transport charges and Rs.150/ per day as special wages. Further they are also being provided free residential accommodation at Jammu. 8) In view of the categoric stand of the respondents, we do not find any reason to show indulgence and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, we expect that the respondents would not harass the appellant merely because he had filed the writ petition against them and didn’t join duties at Jammu during pendency of the writ petition. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 20.08.2025 “Bhat Altaf” Whether the judgment is reportable: No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 22.08.2025 12:05