S. No. 02 Regular List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA No.193/2023 in SWP No.2840/2018 C/w LPA No.192/2023 Reserved On: 06.02.2025. Pronounced On: 13.02.2025. \ 01.Sajad Hussain Najar. S/O Mohammad Shafi, R/o Marhama Sangam, Kulgam. 02.Bilal Ahmad Ganaie. S/O Ab.Hamid, R/oKantchaowa, Kulgam. 03.Mushtaq Ahmad Wani S/o Bashir Ahmad R/o Chehllam Kulgam. …..Appellants Through: Mr. B.A. Misri, Advocate. V/s 01.Union Territory through Comr.Secy.R&B,Deptt.Jammu/Srinagar 02.Managing Director, JKPCC, Jammu/Kashmir. 03. General Manager, JKPCC, Srinagar 04.Dy.G.M.JKPCC, Unit 11th Kulgam. 05.Dy.G.Manager( ADM) JKPCC Ltd. Srinagar. …..Respondent(s) Through : Mr. Illyas Laway, Government Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE JUDGMENT Per: Sanjeev Kumar-J 1. These intra-court appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 19.08.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court (writ Court) in SWP No.2840/2018 and SWP No. 1536/2017 LPA No.193 of 2023 2 | P a g e whereby, the writ petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed. 2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr.B.A.Misri, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, we deem it proper to state a few facts. 3. The case of the appellants before the writ court was that they came to be engaged as daily wagers on need basis in the year 2009-10 by the then Dy. General Manager, JKPCC Ltd. Unit 11th Kulgam, and continued to perform their duties till Government order No. No.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015 was issued. By virtue of the said order, the Government withdrew the authority given to officers of the various departments, to engage casual/seasonal labours delegated by the Government from time to time. 4. Apprehending their disengagement pursuant to the aforesaid Government order, the appellants filed writ petition SWP No. 1536/2017, in which the writ court vide interim order dated 08.08.2017 directed the respondents to release due wages of the appellants. In compliance to the interim order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the writ court, respondents issued a consideration order which was made subject matter of challenge in a petition filed by the appellants i.e., SWP No.2840/2018. 5. The second writ petition filed by the appellants was contested by the respondents by filing their written response. In the written response filed, the respondents took the plea that appellants were engaged by the respondent corporation on need basis and against LPA No.193 of 2023 3 | P a g e the work available in the projects executed by the Corporation. It was further submitted in the reply affidavit that on completion of the projects, Corporation was left with no work to continue with the engagement of Casual labours/daily wagers including the appellants. It was further submitted that in view of the completion of the projects and non-availability of work, services of the appellants were disengaged. It was also plea taken by the respondents that engagement of the appellants by the Dy. General Manager, JKPCC Ltd. was without any legal authority or sanction and therefore, was not sustainable under law. The Government order No. No.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015 was also relied upon by the respondents to justify the disengagement of the appellants. 6. The writ court considered the rvial contentions in the light of material on record and came to the conclusion that the appellants having been engaged on need basis as casual labours in projects had no vested right to continue in the engagement. The writ court, accordingly, dismissed both the writ petitions including SWP No.2840/2018. 7. The impugned order is challenged by the appellants inter-alia on the ground that the respondent corporation had engaged thousands of employees in similar fashion and have allowed them to continue whereas the Appellants have been disengaged. They approached this court seeking release of their pending wages but were greeted with disengagement. LPA No.193 of 2023 4 | P a g e 8. Mr. B.A. Misri, would argue that the Corporation has several projects in hand to execute and therefore, cannot take refuge to the plea that it is left with no work to be offered to the appellants. He further pleads for release of unpaid dues of the appellants. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the writ court is legally perfect and the view taken is unexceptionable. Admittedly, with the issuance of SRO 64 of 1994, all the daily rated workers who, on 31.03.1994, had completed 7 years of continuous service were appointed in the regular pay scale of class 4th and those who completed seven years in subsequent years were accordingly regularized in the relevant financial year. Rule 7 of SRO 64 1994, however, put a complete ban on engagement of daily rated workers or work charged employees in future. It was specifically mentioned in Rule 7 that, with effect from commencement of the Rules, no Field/Subordinate officer shall have the power for engagement of a Daily Rated worker or work charged employee in the department and the existing delegation, if any, is withdrawn. A proviso added to Rule 7, however, provided that the competent authority may engage Casual Labour or Seasonal Labour in any of the departments to be specified by notification from time to time by the Government and such Labour shall be on the Muster Roll for payment of wages and no engagement or appointment orders shall be issued. As is rightly comprehended by the Writ court that the LPA No.193 of 2023 5 | P a g e appellants came to be engaged in the Respondent Corporation under the aforesaid proviso added to Rule 7 of SRO 64 of 1994. 10. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that all the appellants were engaged by the then Deputy General Manager of the Corporation i.e., a Field or a Subordinate officer who lacked competence to make such engagements in terms of proviso to Rule 7 of SRO 64 of 1994. The engagement of appellants was also contrary to proviso added to Rule 7, in that, (Supra). They were not put on any Muster Roll. It is appropriate to note that under the Proviso to Rule 7 (Supra), the Government had issued orders from time to time to delegate authority to the departments to engage Casual/Seasonal labours. One such order passed was Government order No. 239-F of 2005 dated 29.11.2005. However, all these orders were withdrawn vide Government order No.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015. It means that on and after 17.03.2015, no authority in any of the departments was entitled to engage Casual/Seasonal Labour and the authority earlier delegated by the Government stood withdrawn with immediate effect. 11. The writ court has examined the entire matter in the light of above Proviso to SRO 64 of 1994 and the impact of order dated 17.03.2015 and has come to a just conclusion that though the appellants were engaged by a person not competent to do so yet they continued to work so long as their services were required for the execution of the projects in hand. It is a common knowledge and this court can take a judicial notice that J&K PCC was/is engaged in executing different projects handed over to it by the LPA No.193 of 2023 6 | P a g e Government and with a view to carrying out its projects, it engaged/engages CasuaL/Seasonal Labours on need basis. Such engagement on need basis are co-terminus with the projects the engagements are made in. This exactly was the stand of the respondent corporation before this court. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by Mr.B.A.Misri, learned counsel for the appellants but could not persuade ourselves to agree with his contention that the appellants are entitled to continue as Casual/Seasonal labour till eternity. 13. Admittedly, engagement of appellants was purely on need basis and in respect of the work available under the projects and the same was necessarily to come to an end with the completion of projects. We cannot doubt the stand taken by the respondents that the engagement of the appellants by the then Deputy General Manager besides being without any authority, was contrary to the Proviso to Rule 7 of SRO 64 of 1994. 14. For all these reasons as also for the reasoning given by the writ court in support of its judgment, we find no merit in these appeals and the same merit dismissal. However, before parting, we would like to direct the respondent corporation to appoint an Officer of the rank of Deputy General Manager to go into the grievance of the appellants with regard to their outstanding wages which as per the appellants had not been paid to them. The Deputy General Manager shall conduct a detailed enquiry associating the appellants here and give its report to the Managing Director of the JKPCC. If LPA No.193 of 2023 7 | P a g e upon enquiry, Respondent Corporation finds that the appellants or any of them have not been paid their wages for the period they have rendered their services, their wages shall be released. The enquiry shall be completed within a period of two months from the date this order is served upon respondents and the amount, if any, found due to the appellants, shall be released to them within three months thereafter. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions both the appeals are dismissed. (PUNEET GUPTA) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 13.02.2025 Nuzhat Parveen 1. Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 13.02.25