news details |
|
|
| High Court directs Re-consideration for regularization | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, June 15: The Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, comprising Chief Justice N. Kotishwar Singh and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, has ruled in favor of the petitioners who were engaged as Lecturers/Demonstrators in the education department on an academic arrangement basis since 1994. The court set aside the previous judgment and directed the respondents to re-consider the case of the appellants for their regularization under the provisions of the Act of 2010. The court emphasized that despite the age factor, the appellants' services should be considered for regularization within one month from the date of the judgment.
The Division Bench referred to the saying, "The sword of Damocles hangs by a thread right over one's head, ready to drop and rip one's head right off," to highlight the constant fear and threat under which the appellants have been living. The court observed that the appellants deserve to be treated as consolidated/temporary employees under the Act of 2010, regardless of the nature of their initial engagement.
Furthermore, the court stated that the respondents' claim that the appellants were continuing on the posts based on court orders was unjustified. The respondents allowed them to continue without any compulsion, indicating a need for their services. The court criticized the respondents' intention to deny the appellants the benefits of their long years of service by misinterpreting Section 3(b) of the Act of 2010. The court emphasized that the law should not be selectively applied to benefit a few and deny it to others. Instead, the court found the appellants' case aligning more with Section 5 of the Act of 2010. The court concluded that the repealment of the Act of 2010 by the J&K Re-Organization Act, 2019, should not erase the accrued rights of the appellants.
In light of these findings, the court set aside the previous judgment and ordered the respondents to re-consider the regularization of the appellants' services within one month. The court acknowledged the appellants' dedication and years spent in litigation pursuing their cause. The court clarified that this case should not set a precedent due to its unique circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
