news details |
|
|
| Terminated Daily Wager can’t claim re-engagement: HC | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 30- Dismissing a petition filed by a terminated daily water seeking re-engagement Justice Sunil Hali of J&K High Court Jammu Wing observed that a Daily Rated Worker engaged on need basis does not have any protection under Article 311 r/w Article 126 of the Constitution of India. Once the services have been terminated he cannot as a matter of right ask for re-engagement, unless there is violation of any rules or fundamental rights.
Justice Hali observed that the only ground on the basis of which petitioner is seeking re-engagement is that the termination of his service was based upon the FIR which was registered against him and he was tried by the Court and stands acquitted. Therefore, he has right to re-engagement in service. This would not be basis for his engagement as in the opinion of the Court the respondents have rightly taken the decision not to reengage him as his service stands terminated as daily wager. With these observations Court dismissed the petition.
Mohammed Iqbal in his petition filed through Advocate OP Thakur claimed that he was engaged as daily wager in the police department on August 23, 1989 and disengaged on December 22, 1994 on account of registration of FIR against him for offences U/Ss 148, 149, 302, 307 RPC r/w section 3/25, 3/4 TADA and the petitioner was detained under PSA on August 23, 1995. His order of detention was set-aside by the order of High Court on October 30, 1996. He also stood acquitted by the TADA Court on January 13, 2001. After having been exonerated and released from detention, the petitioner approached the respondents for rejoining his service. The respondents not allowed him to rejoin and he filed present petition seeking re-engagement/ regularization under SRO 64/1994. Senior Additional Advocate General SC Gupta appearing for the state submitted that even though the petitioner has been acquitted by the Trial Court and his detention order quashed, he cannot be permitted to join the services. He further submitted that services of the petitioner have been terminated in the year of 1994 as such he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for JNF.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
