Item No.26 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Pronounced on:03.06.2026 Uploaded on: 08.06.2026 WP(C) No.3638/2019 GHULAM AHMAD DAR ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. S. N. Ratanpuri, Advocate. Vs. GOVERNMENT OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Jahingeer Dar, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order bearing No.FCDK/2439-40 dated 28.10.2017, whereby his claim for release of wages has been rejected. The petitioner has also sought a direction upon the respondents to release his wages in accordance with Minimum Wages Act for the period for which he has worked with the respondents. 2) As per case of the petitioner, during the month of March, 2015, when flood alert was sounded in the Valley, the then Chief Minister of the State of J&K, who was on official visit along with Finance Minister, had directed respondent No.5 to engage services of the petitioner for ferrying locals across the P a g e | 2 River Jhelum at Hajibal Lethpora and for this purpose, a boat was provided by respondent No.6 to the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner was paid Rs.5000/ each on two occasions but the balance payment was not released in his favour. 3) It has been submitted that in the month of May, 2016, the petitioner approached the Minister of State for Forest, Ecology and Environment and requested him that he may be engaged against any post on need basis in view of the fact that he had rendered services without any remuneration for a pretty long time. Vide DO letter dated 12.05.2016, the Minister asked respondent No.4 to look into the grievances of the petitioner for their redressal. 4) Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, respondent No.4 sought report from respondent No.5, who in turn sought report from respondent No.3 with regard to grievances of the petitioner. It has been submitted that respondent No.3 prepared a report stating therein that there is blanket ban on appointments and, as such, he made a request for accord of approval from higher authorities so that the petitioner can be appointed as casual labourer on need basis. However, respondent No.2 made an observation that because of blanket ban on engagement of casual and seasonal labourers, the petitioner cannot be engaged. A direction was issued to respondent No.3 P a g e | 3 that the wages for the period the petitioner has worked be released in his favour. 5) It has been submitted that no action was taken on the direction issued by respondent No.2, as a consequence whereof, the petitioner served a legal notice upon respondents No.1 to 3 seeking release of his unpaid wages and when no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.534/2018 before this Court. 6) Vide order dated 08.08.2017, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court by issuing the following directions: “By this writ petition, he seeks release of wages in his favour for the period he has actually worked in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act. The respondents' counsel states that whatever minimum wages have to be paid for such job due for the period for which the petitioner has actually worked will be paid to him if not already paid. The said statement is record. As far as the second relief prayed for in the writ petition is concerned, there is no serious objection from the learned counsel for the respondents. She states that the respondent department is willing to engage is service as and when required. As far as the third prayer is concerned, as a matter of rule, the petitioner cannot claim appointment against any particular post. No direction can be passed for this appointment against any particular post. The petitioner can ventilate his grievance by way of representation.” 7) It seems that when the order of the Writ Court was not complied with by the respondents, the petitioner filed contempt petition bearing CPSW No.863/2017. During P a g e | 4 pendency of the contempt petition, the respondents issued the impugned consideration order dated 28.10.2017, whereby claim of the petitioner for release of unpaid wages has been rejected. 8) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the same is violative of his right to life and that the respondents cannot extract work from him without paying the minimum wages in his favour. 9) The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition, in which it has been submitted that there is no cause of action in favour of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the matter was submitted to the Chief Engineer, I&FC, Srinagar, vide office letter dated 23.06.2016 and the Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 07.12.2016, conveyed that no action is possible in the matter as the Government has imposed blanket ban on the engagement of casual/seasonal labourers vide Government Order No.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015. Regarding release of wages, it was reported that the respondent Division has neither utilized services of the petitioner nor has directed him to undertake the service of ferrying the people after the floods, as such, there is no question of release of wages in his favour. It has been submitted that the impugned consideration order is based P a g e | 5 upon facts and that the same has been issued in accordance with law. 10) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 11) The claim of the petitioner is that he had ferried people across river Jhelum at Hajibal Lethpora on the asking of the then Chief Minister and he has been paid only Rs.5000/ each on two occasions whereas his balance wages have not been released in his favour. The petitioner has not furnished any details about the dates/period during which he has performed the work of ferrying the people across river Jhelum at Hajibal Lethpora. 12) To press home his contention for release of wages, the petitioner is relying upon communication dated 23.06.2016 (Annexure-III to the writ petition) addressed by the Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Kakapora, to the Chief Engineer. In the said communication, it is mentioned that the petitioner was asked to operate a boat provided by the District Administration on the asking of MLA, Pampore (now the Minister of State for Forest, Ecology and Environment, Animal and Sheep Husbandry, Cooperative and Fisheries, J&K) just after the floods of September, 2014. It has been further reported in the said communication that the petitioner is still plying the boat for ferrying the locals from Village Lethpora P a g e | 6 to Hajibal across the river as reported by the AEE, FC Sub Division, Pampore, vide his communication dated 11.06.2016. The communication goes on to forward the recommendation of the Minister of State regarding engagement of the petitioner as need based casual labourer. Excepting the aforesaid communication, there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner has discharged any functions on the asking of the respondents. 13) The contents of the communication dated 23.06.2016 (supra) appears to be doubtful because the floods took place in September, 2014 but, as per the said communication, the petitioner is stated to be undertaking the functions of ferrying the locals even in June, 2016. It is a fact of common knowledge that floods of September, 2014, had receded within a month or so, therefore, the claim made in the communicated dated 23.06.2016 that the petitioner is still ferrying the locals in the boat across the river Jhelum is palpably false. On the basis of such a doubtful communication, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has performed any functions on the asking of the respondents even after the floods of September, 2014 had receded. 14) The petitioner has himself admitted that he has been paid an amount of Rs.10,000/ for the work of ferrying people during the period of floods. In the absence of any details P a g e | 7 regarding the period for which he has continued to work and in view of the specific denial of the respondents, the petitioner cannot claim any wages from the respondents, particularly when there is not cogent material on record to support his claim. 15) For what has been discussed hereinbefore, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Srinagar, 03.06.2026 “Bhat Altaf-Secretary” Whether the ORDER is reportable: Yes/No