ET Report
Jammu, Sept 23 : The High Court of J&K, taking a serious view for non-compliance of the High Court directions, ordered for personal presence of Farooq Ahmed Pir, Commissioner/ Secretary, Rural Development Department before the court on the next date of hearing.
The Bench presided over by Justice J. R. Kotwal, the court, after hearing the counsels for the petitioner and the respondents, in a contempt petition titled Anuradha vs. Farooq Ahmed Pir, observed, "Given the stand taken in the application, it appears that implementation of the court order may turn out to be an unending process. Respondent number 1, therefore, in the backdrop of the fact that far back on 19-9-2012, the deputy advocate general had extended assurance that order is being implemented, shall appear before the court in person to make a definite statement. In case of default, his presence may be secured by adopting coercive method and in case order is implemented, personal appearance, shall stand dispensed with." S. S. Lehar, Sr. Advocate with Meharban Singh, Advocate appeared for the petitioner and Z. S. Watali, Dy. Advocate General for Respondent.The court ordered for listing the case in week commencing 4-11- 2013 The petitioner Anuradha D/o Sh. Charan Dass R/o Landar, Block Panchari, Udhampur claiming to have been appointed as daily rated worker on 25 January 1994, filed a writ petition registered in SWP No. 697/2001, praying for a direction to the state to regularise her service. The writ petition was disposed of on 12-10-2001 with the direction to the state to accord consideration to regularise her services. Her claim was rejected by the state vide its order dated 23-04-2005 for the reasons that she was engaged as casual labor and not a daily wager moreover, she have not completed 7 years of her continued service as a daily wager, hence cannot claim the benefits under SRO 64 of 1994. Feeling aggrieved of this order Anuradha once again approached the Hon'ble Court and filed writ petition SWP No. 605/2005. In this petition, she insisted that she have been appointed as a daily wager and allowed to continue as a daily wager for more than 7 years, hence entitled to regularisation of her service in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.
The state took the stand that she was engaged as a casual labour and not as a daily wager. After her engagement as a casual labour, she was not paid wages for a particular period and thus, she did not have uninterrupted service of 7 years to her credit. The court held that she was engaged as a daily wager on 25 January 1994 i.e. Before the cut-off date of 31 January 1994, after which engagement on daily wager bases was prohibited, hence entitled to the benefit of regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994. Court was of the opinion that continued and uninterrupted service for a long period and not the nomenclature, was crucial in deciding, whether the respondent was a casual worker or a daily wager. The writ court allowed the writ petition and directed the state to regularise the service of the respondent in terms of SRO 64 of 1994, from the date the petitioner completed 7 years of service. She was also held entitled to back wedges from the date of regularisation. Against this order state preferred an appeal before the double bench of J&K High Court. The court upheld the single bench judgement and dismissed the appeal of the state on 11-02-2011. Feeling aggrieved the state preferred an appeal, against this order, before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition of the state vide its orders dated 02-07-2012 in (CC 7358/ 2012) on the grounds of delay, as well as on merits. |
