Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Nov 6: High Court in a significant decision has held that the casual labourers cannot seek regularization of services as no vested right accrues to them for such claim.
The Division Bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Rajnesh Oswal set aside the decision of writ court where in authorities were directed to consider the claim of a casual labourers for regularization. Court, however, directed the authorities to consider their claim on the touchstone of provisions of SRO 520 of 2017.
The DB in its considered view recorded that the writ court has based its conclusion on a wrong premise and the same being not in accordance with the rules or the law on the subject needs to be interfered with.
“Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment & order and as a sequel thereto the writ petition No. 828/2009 is partly allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the respondent/ petitioner for his regularization on the touchstone of the provisions of SRO 520 of 2017 within a period of two months from the date copy of the order is furnished to them”, DB concluded while deciding the appeal of Government.
The DB said that the casual labourer cannot seek regularization as no vested right accrues in his favour for such claim, but if the employer (Government) comes up with any scheme for the benefit of such employees governing their engagement, the service of the casual labourers have to be, in such eventuality, dealt with under the provisions of such scheme and the benefit, if any, getting accrued as such to them cannot be arbitrarily denied to them.
Pertinently the Government of J&K for the regularization of casual labourers and daily rated workers issued two SROs; SRO 64 of 1994 pertaining to the regularization of daily rated workers and SRO 520 of 2017 for the regularization/ absorption of casual labourers.
The petitioner-Abdul Wahid before the writ court was claiming regularization of his services after having been engaged as a casual labourer in the year 1997 and the said writ petition was disposed of by the writ court in June, 2008, with the direction to authorities to consider the petitioner-Wahid, for regularization under law at par with the other casual labourers if he is similarly situated with them in all respects.
Feeling aggrieved of the rejection order, he challenged the same by filing a writ petition SWP No. 828/2009 inter alia on the ground that similarly situated persons have been regularized and the denial in his case is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Single Judge after consideration of the matter agreed with the contentions of his counsel and in terms of the judgment and order dated November 27, 2018, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to take all necessary steps for absorption/regularization of the petitioner on the analogy of other similarly situated persons.
Appellants-General Administration Department feeling aggrieved of the said judgment filed the instant appeal seeking reversal of the judgment and dismissing of the writ petition on the ground that the impugned judgment and order is contrary to law and the facts as the Writ Court failed to appreciate the objections of the appellants in its right perspective.
Additional Advocate General submitted that the writ court has not at all considered the reply of the authorities with reference to the stand that there is no policy in vogue in the shape of any rule, Government Policy for the regularization of the casual labourers, to appreciate the controversy in its right perspective.
Court has been informed that the authorities could regularize the daily rated workers in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 and the casual labourers in terms of SRO 520/2017 and petitioner-Wahid who is admittedly continuing as casual labour for considerable period, as such his case will be dealt with under the provisions of SRO 520 of 2017.
DB after taking the law in to account and facts of the case viewed that the writ court has proceeded on a wrong premise. “There is no rule that provides for absorption/ regularization of a casual labourer on the basis of parity”, DB said and added that the court cannot also order regularization on the count that the individual has worked on a temporary post for a quite a long time.
Follow our WhatsApp channel