news details |
|
|
| DB upholds decision of writ Court for regularization | | |
JAMMU, JULY 17:-
Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court Jammu wing comprising Acting Chief Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Nirmal Singh in an appeal filed by the Education Department against the order and judgment passed by Single Judge Justice Permod Kohli passed on December 2, 2005 with the directions that minimum wages as payable under the Minimum Wages Act with effect from January 1992 paid to the petitioner and also petitioner be considered for regularization as class-IV.
Aggrieved by this order the state and its officials filed this appeal. During the pendency of appeal, the appellants were directed to deposit the wages of the respondent in terms of the Minimum Wages Act from January 1992 to March 2006 and to pay the amount to the respondents within two weeks. The state preferred an appeal against this interim order in the Supreme Court of India which was disposed off by the Apex Court order of January 5, 2007 but stayed the direction in so far as the payment was directed to be made to the respondents.
According to the facts of the case that Abdul Majid was appointed as waterman cum sweeper in Government Primary School Jakhed Ramnagar on May 1, 1980 by an order issued by Tehsil Education Officer Ramnagar on the wages of Rs 40 per annum which was increased to Rs 80 and finally to Rs 500 per annum in year 1992.
DB, after hearing Deputy AG Neeru Goswami appearing for the state/appellants and Adv Tahir K Raina appearing for the respondent, observed that on a consideration of submissions made on behalf of the parties and material on record and the relevant statutory provisions, the DB came to the conclusion that the petitioner was appointed as waterman which is a post in the regular establishment and he was also appointed by the competent officer. This demolishes the stand of the state that engagement was contingent in character and therefore he was not entitled to any regularization. In this premises there is no reason to interfere with the order of writ Court but DB clarified that from the order of writ Court it appears that the petitioner was 58 years old when the matter was before the writ Court. In other words he must have now crossed the age of superannuation, therefore, clarified the order of the writ Court to the extent that all monetary benefits, consequent upon the respondent’s regularization in service as per direction of the writ Court shall accrue to him from the date of filling of the petition before this Court but his past service will be taken into account for the purpose of retrial benefits, including pension. In determining the monetary benefits payable to the respondents falling regularization in service, the appellant authorities shall detect the amount already deposited in terms of interim order of the Court. It will be open to the respondent (petitioner) to withdraw the amount deposited by the state in pursuance of interim order passed by this Court. With these observations and directions, the DB disposed of this appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
