Page 1 of 5 WP(C) No. 785/2026 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Pronounced On : 01.04.2026 Uploaded on : 06.04.2026 WP(C) No. 785/2026 Sukhvinder Singh …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .….Respondents Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (01.04.2026) 01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged order No. 49 of 2018 dated 28.04.2018 issued by the respondent No. 4-District Treasury Officer, Kathua, whereby his claim with regard to his re-engagement as Driver has been rejected. 02. As per case of the petitioner, his services as a driver (Temporary) were engaged by the respondents on 22.07.2014 and he was posted with District Treasury Officer Kathua. It has been submitted that engagement of Serial No. 122 Supplementary List-1 Page 2 of 5 WP(C) No. 785/2026 the petitioner was made pursuant to Government Order No. 09-F of 2014 dated 15.01.2014. According to the petitioner he was paid salary for the first sixteen months till November 2015 but from December 2015 onwards, he has not been paid salary. 03. It has been submitted that the petitioner was put off duty from December 2015 onwards for undisclosed reasons whereafter he filed two applications under RTI Act, before PIO District Treasury Office, Kathua. In response to the said applications, the petitioner was informed that no order of his termination has been issued and that no formal order of engagement has ever been issued in his favour. It has been alleged that respondent No. 5-Khem Raj, who is an aide of the respondent No. 4,has been illegally allowed to perform the functions of driver and the services of the petitioner have been disengaged on extraneous considerations. 04. It seems that the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a writ petition bearing SWP No. 357/2018 seeking appropriate directions against the official respondents. The said writ petition came to be decided by this Court by virtue of order dated 05.03.2018 whereby the official respondents were directed to treat the writ petition filed Page 3 of 5 WP(C) No. 785/2026 by the petitioner as a representation and to consider his claim. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the impugned order dated 28.04.2018 came to be issued by respondent No. 4 whereby his claim has been rejected. 05. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the same is illegal and arbitrary having been issued for extraneous considerations. It has been contended that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 4 is violative of rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been further contended that the order impugned reflects arbitrary exercise of power by respondent No. 4. 06. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record of the case. 07. From the documents annexed with the writ petition, it is clearly discernible that services of the petitioner were never directly engaged by the official respondents but he was allowed to ply the official vehicle of District Treasury Office, Kathua on outsourcing basis. Therefore, no engagement order was issued in favour of the petitioner by the official respondents. Page 4 of 5 WP(C) No. 785/2026 08. It seems that when the petitioner stopped attending the office, respondent No. 4 engaged services of another driver on outsourcing basis. The record further shows that vide Government Order No. 09-F of 2014 dated 15.01.2014 it was decided by the Government to outsource the services of drivers and pursuant to the said policy decision of the Government, services of the petitioner were engaged on outsourcing basis. 09. In view of the aforesaid facts emanating from the record, it is clear that services of petitioner were never directly engaged by respondent No. 4.Therefore, he had no direct relationship of employee with the official respondents. Since the petitioner, at no stage, was an employee of the official respondents and he was performing his services as driver on outsourcing basis, he has no right to continue with the respondents if they do not need his services.In fact, in the impugned consideration order the respondents have clearly stated that there is only one official vehicle available in the office, for which a driver stands already engaged. In the face of this position, the petitioner cannot compel the official respondents to re- engage him when there is no requirement for engagement of another driver. Because the petitioner has never been engaged as driver by the official respondents directly as Page 5 of 5 WP(C) No. 785/2026 such he has no enforceable right against the said respondents. 10. For what has been discussed herein above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by respondent No. 4. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed, accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 01.04.2026 SUNIL Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes Whether the order is reportable ? : No