HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (th. virtual mode) Reserved on 19.05.2026 Pronounced on:05.06.2026 Updated on 05.06.2026 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full SWP No. 886/2017 Mushtaq Ahmad Sheikh and others …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Rizwan Ul Zaman, Adv. Q vs State of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Illyas Nazir Laway, GA Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners through the medium of present petition have challenged order bearing No. MC/ANG/16-17/5736-41 dated 10.03.2017 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby the claim of the petitioners for release of legally earned salary/wages pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in SWP No. 2485/2016 has been rejected. The petitioners have also sought a direction upon the respondents to release unpaid wages in their favour from August 2013 and to accord similar treatment to the petitioners which has been accorded to similarly situated casual labourers. The petitioners have further sought a direction upon the respondents to absorb them in the respondent- Department on permanent basis. 2. As per case of the petitioners, they were engaged as casual labourers by the respondents in the year 2009 and they were being paid wages at the rate of SWP No. 886/2017 Page 2 of 5 ₹2100/- per month, which were later on enhanced to ₹3300/- per month. It has been submitted that the petitioners have been paid wages up to July 2013 but thereafter wages in their favour are not being released by the respondents despite the fact that the petitioners continue to discharge their functions as casual labourers with the respondents. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioners have approached the respondents on numerous occasions seeking release of wages in their favour but no action has been taken by the respondents, though similarly circumstanced casual labourers are being paid wages by the respondents on regular basis. In order to demonstrate that the petitioners are still continuing to perform their duties with the respondent-Department, they have placed on record statements relating to March 2015 to August 2015, January 2016 to June 2016, which according to the petitioners, support their contentions that they have attended duties during the aforesaid period in Municipal Council, Anantnag. 4. It appears that the petitioners had approached this Court by way of writ petition bearing SWP No. 2485/2015 seeking a direction upon the respondents to release wages in their favour with effect from August, 2018. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 18.11.2015 with a direction to the respondents to release legitimately earned wages in favour of the petitioners from the month of August, 2013. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Court, the respondents have issued impugned consideration order dated 10.03.2017, wherein it has been provided that the petitioners are neither on the rolls of Municipal Council Anantnag nor they have performed any work from the year 2014. On this ground, claim of the petitioners for release of wages beyond the period of July, 2013 has been rejected. SWP No. 886/2017 Page 3 of 5 5. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the same has been issued on extraneous considerations with mala fide intentions. It has been contended that similarly circumstanced casual labourers are being regularly paid by the respondents but wages in favour of the petitioners are not being paid wages. According to the petitioners, the stand of the respondents that the petitioners are not on the rolls of the respondent- Department is contrary to the record, particularly the statements/certificates issued by respondent No. 3, copies whereof have been produced by the petitioners along with the writ petition. 6. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their reply. In their reply, it has been submitted that the petitioners were engaged as Contingent Paid Workers(CPWs) by Vice President, Municipal Council Anantnag in the year 2009 in violation of Section 307 of Municipal Act 2000 and in contravention of Recruitment Rules and J&K Government Order No. 214 HUD of 2008. It has been submitted that pursuant to the directions in SWP No. 2485/2015, the claim of the petitioners was considered and it was found from the records that the petitioners are neither on the rolls of the Municipal Council Anantnag nor they have performed any work from August 2013 onwards as they have been disengaged after clearing all their dues up to July, 2013. The respondents have specifically denied the authenticity of the attendance statements placed on record by the petitioners and it has been claimed that the said documents are forged, as the petitioners are not working with the Municipal Council from August 2013 onwards. 7. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents in which they have reiterated their contentions as made in the writ petition. They have also placed on record copies of orders issued by the respondents from SWP No. 886/2017 Page 4 of 5 time to time whereby certain other consolidated paid workers/casual labourers have been placed in regular pay scales. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. I have also perused the record produced by the respondents. 9. As per admitted case of the parties, the petitioners came to be engaged as casual labourers by the respondents in the year 2009. Though the respondents claim that the petitioners were engaged by an incompetent authority, nonetheless, the fact remains that the petitioners were engaged by the respondents as CPWs and they have admittedly worked with the respondents up to July 2013. The petitioners claim that they have continued to work with the respondents even after July, 2013 and in fact, it is the claim of the petitioners that as on date of filing of the writ petition, they were continuing to discharge their functions with the respondents. However, this has been strenuously disputed by the respondents in their reply. 10. To support their contention, the petitioners have placed on record attendance certificates/statements for the months of March, 2015 to August, 2015, January 2016 to June 2016. However, the authenticity of these documents has been disputed by the respondents in their reply in categoric terms. The respondents have also produced the record relating to attendance of the casual labourers from the year 2014 onwards. A perusal of the said record would reveal that the names of the petitioners do not figure in the Muster Sheets. Therefore, the issue as to whether the petitioners continued to work with the respondents even after July 2013 with the respondents becomes a complicated and disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, particularly, when the record produced by the respondents with regard to the attendance of the casual labourers, clearly SWP No. 886/2017 Page 5 of 5 suggests that the names of the petitioners do not figure in the Muster Sheets. In the absence of any unimpeachable material on record to show that the petitioners continued to discharge their duties with the respondents beyond July 2013, no direction can be issued upon the respondents to release wages in their favour. 11. So far as the documents placed on record by the petitioners along with their rejoinder are concerned, the same tend to show that some of the casual labourers engaged by the respondents have been placed on regular scales of pay. However, the said documents pertain to a period when the petitioners had not even been engaged as casual labourers with the respondents. All these orders pertain to the year 2008, whereas the petitioners have been admittedly engaged by the respondents in the year 2009. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any parity with the casual labourers whose services were regularized prior to the year, 2009. 12. For what has been said, analysed and discussed hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the instant petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 05.06.2026 Rakesh PS Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No