Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 13: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by Mohammad Amin Rather and others, seeking permanent casual labour status, holding that regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right outside the constitutional scheme governing public employment.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, while dismissing petition, held that the petitioners failed to make out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners, through Advocate Hilal Ahmad Wani had challenged Order No. 9033-34 dated 24.12.2020, whereby their claim for being brought at par with respondents as permanent casual labourers had been rejected. They also sought a direction to the authorities to extend to them the same treatment and benefits as were granted to respondents 6 to 9 vide Order No. 700-02 dated 30.06.2014.
Opposing the petition, the respondents, represented by Jehangir Ahmad Dar, Government Advocate, with Shaila Shameem, Assisting Counsel, submitted that the petitioners were merely seasonal labourers engaged on need basis during the irrigation season and did not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed under SRO 520 of 2017.
The respondents further submitted that a blanket ban existed on engagements and that the cases of respondents stood on a different footing, as they had been adjusted against watch and ward duties on the basis of seniority and administrative exigencies.
After considering the rival submissions, the court observed that equality under Article 14 means positive equality and not negative equality. The court held that merely because some benefit may have been extended to another set of employees, the same by itself does not confer an enforceable right upon the petitioners to claim identical relief contrary to the governing statutory framework.
The court noted that respondents were adjusted against watch and ward duties due to administrative exigencies and seniority, while the petitioners admittedly figured much lower in the seniority list and continued to remain seasonal labourers engaged purely during the irrigation season. This distinction, the court held, constituted a reasonable basis for differential treatment.
The court further held that the petitioners could not claim parity merely on the ground that they were also engaged as seasonal labourers. Parity, the court said, cannot be claimed in abstraction without establishing complete identity in terms of seniority, nature of duties, availability of posts and administrative requirements.
The Court observed that judicial review under Article 226 is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the decision itself, unless the same is shown to be patently arbitrary, mala fide or violative of statutory provisions.
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed the writ petition along with connected applications, if any, and vacated all interim directions.
====
Follow our WhatsApp channel
