WP(C) No.3051/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 21.05.2025 Pronounced on: 30.05.2025 WP(C) No.3051/2022 ABDUL HAMID BHAT & OTHERS ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have challenged order dated 16.06.2022, whereby their claim for extending benefit under SRO 520 of 2017 has been rejected. 2) The facts emanating from the pleadings of the parties are that in terms of different orders issued by the respondents, the petitioners were engaged on need basis with remuneration of ₹3000 per month in the year 2014. It has been submitted that the petitioners, in accordance with the terms of their engagement, discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the respondents. In the meanwhile, Government Order No.43 - F of 2015 dated 17. 3. 2015 came WP(C) No.3051/2022 to be issued by the respondents, whereby the authority to engage casual/seasonal labourers in various departments came to be withdrawn with immediate effect. Upon issuance of the aforesaid order, the wages of the petitioners were withheld which compelled them to file a writ petition bearing SWP No.2236/2015 before this Court. In terms of the judgment dated 04.06.2019, the writ petition was allowed and all the orders, whereby the petitioners were disengaged, were quashed and the respondents were directed to continue the petitioners as casual labourers on need basis in terms of their engagement orders with a further direction to the respondents to accord benefits which may accrue to the petitioners in terms of the policy decision of the Government. 3) It has been submitted that the respondents filed appeals against the judgement dated 04.06.2019 before the Division Bench of this Court. Vide judgment dated 29.01.2021, the appeals filed by the respondents were allowed and the judgment passed by the Writ Court was set aside. However, the petitioners were left free to claim benefit under SRO 520 of 2017. 4) It has been submitted that the judgment passed by the Division Bench was assailed by the petitioners by way of SLP before the Supreme Court which came to be disposed of in WP(C) No.3051/2022 terms of order dated 13.08.2021, whereby the State Government was given liberty to examine the feasibility whether the persons like the petitioners can be accommodated at least in some employment either similar to what they were doing or otherwise. 5) The petitioners are stated to have filed another writ petition bearing WP(C) No.2474/2021 before this Court, inter alia, seeking a direction upon the respondents to process their cases in the light of SRO 520 of 2017, with a further direction that they should be allowed to continue to work as need based workers till they are regularized in terms of SRO 520 of 2017. In the said writ petition, an interim order came to be passed by this Court on 02.12.2017, whereby the respondents were directed not to disturb the present status of the petitioners. The respondents were further directed to pay the legitimately earned salary in favour of the petitioners in terms of SRO 520 of 2017. 6) The aforesaid writ petition came to be finally disposed of vide order dated 13.04.2022, whereby the petitioners were given liberty to approach the competent authority by filing representation for regularization of their services and the respondents were directed to consider and decide the said representation in accordance with law. WP(C) No.3051/2022 7) It seems that after the filing of representation by the petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid direction dated 13.04.2022 of this Court, the impugned consideration order dated 16.06.2022 came to be passed by the respondents whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularization under SRO 520 of 2017 has been rejected on the ground that they are not fulfilling the conditions/criteria laid down in the said SRO. 8) The petitioners have challenged the impugned consideration order on the grounds that the same is discriminatory in nature, inasmuch as similarly circumstanced persons are working with the respondents and are likely to be regularized. It has been further contended that in terms of the directions passed by the Supreme Court, the respondents had to examine the feasibility whether the petitioners can be accommodated at least in some employment but they have observed the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court in breach. It has been submitted that SRO 520 of 2017 applies to all casual/seasonal workers which includes need-based workers who were engaged upto 17.03.2015, therefore, it was not open to the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioners. WP(C) No.3051/2022 9) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 10) It is not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged by the respondents in the year 2014 on need basis with one day break after every 89 days on consolidated wages in various sheep breeding farms. It is also not in dispute that the Department of Finance, issued Government Order No.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015, whereby it was ordered that the authority to engage casual/seasonal labourers delegated to various departments vide Government Order No.138-F of 2011 dated 23.05.2011 and Government Order No.105-PD of 2010 dated 25.10.2010, stood withdrawn with immediate effect. In pursuance to the aforesaid Government Order, the petitioners were disengaged which compelled them to approach this Court by way of a writ petition bearing SWP No.481/2016 and connected cases. The said writ petition along with other writ petitions was allowed and the disengagement orders of the petitioners were quashed and the respondents were directed to continue the petitioners as casual labourers on need basis in terms of their engagement orders. 11) The aforesaid judgment came to be challenged by the respondent State by way of an LPA before the Division Bench WP(C) No.3051/2022 of this Court, which came to be allowed in terms of judgment dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Division Bench. While allowing the appeal, the Division Bench held that after the expiry of the term of engagement which was to expire after every 89 days, once the authority for engagement of casual labourers etc. was withdrawn by the Government, the petitioners could not have been given extension in their engagement and, therefore, orders of their disengagement cannot be interfered with. 12) The Supreme Court, while dealing with the SLP against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, disposed of the same by observing as under: “We may, however, note that in view of the crisis of employment, more particularly in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the State Government may examine the feasibility whether the persons like the petitioners can be accommodated at least in some employment either similar to what they were doing or otherwise.” 13) In the second round of litigation, the petitioners filed writ petition bearing WP(C) No.2474/2021, which was disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 13.04.2021, whereby the petitioners were given liberty to approach the competent authority by filing representation for regularization of their service. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed representation which was rejected by the respondents by virtue of the impugned order. WP(C) No.3051/2022 14) It has been urged by the petitioners that the Supreme Court had observed that they should be accommodated by the Government in some employment either similar to what they were doing or otherwise but the respondents have not adhered to the said observation of the Supreme Court. In this regard, it is to be noted that the Supreme Court had given an option to the State Government to examine the feasibility whether the persons like the petitioners can be accommodated. There is no mandamus issued by the Supreme Court against the respondents to accommodate the petitioners. The Government was asked only to examine the feasibility of accommodating the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim any enforceable right to get themselves accommodated in the respondent department. In any case the impugned consideration order has not been issued pursuant to the observations of the Supreme Court but the same has been issued pursuant to the observations made by this Court while disposing of writ petition bearing WP(C) No.2474/2021. 15) That takes us to the legality and validity of the impugned consideration order dated 16.06.2022. As per the said order, the petitioners do not fulfil the conditions/criteria laid down under SRO 520 of 2017. If we WP(C) No.3051/2022 have a look at clause (4) of the said SRO, it provides for eligibility for engagement. One of the eligibility conditions is that the candidate must have completed ten years of continuous working. The petitioners, admittedly, were engaged as need based casual labourers in the year 2014. So, as on date of consideration, they had not completed ten years of working, even if it is assumed that they had continuously worked since the date of their engagement till the date of their consideration, though the fact of the matter remains that the petitioners were disengaged in the year 2015 itself. Thus, the petitioners did not fulfil the criteria/eligibility for extending in their favour the benefit in terms of SRO 520 of 2017. The impugned order of consideration is, therefore, in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. 16) The petitioners have sought a further direction that fresh consideration should be accorded to their cases in accordance with SRO 520 of 2017 and that they should be paid wages in accordance with the said SRO. 17) It has been brought to the notice of this Court that SRO 520 of 2017 stands repealed by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir in terms of notification dated 6th October, 2023. WP(C) No.3051/2022 Therefore, the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioners cannot be granted in their favour. 18) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. Interim direction, if any, shall cease to be in operation. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 30.05.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 30.05.2025 03:49