Ali Mohammad Hajam vs State of J & K

Appellant filed Writ Petition SWP 658/1996 with prayer for Regularisation as daily wager on the ground that from 1979, he is permanent

labourer as Animal Attendant at regional Research station Faculty of Agriculture Wadoora Sopore/Shalamar. Despite having worked for long, he

is not regularised. The Writ court vide order dated 11.7.1996 while admitting the writ petition to hearing, issued an adinterim direction to allow the

petitioner to work against the said post Animal attendant. Following this court direction, Appellant was engaged on daily wage basis at Srinagar, at

his own risk and responsibility and subject to final outcome of petition, and alleges continuance hereto as such daily wager.

This writ petition alongwith number of other Writ petition was decided on 10.10.2002 as clubbed matter. Ld. Single Judge of this court issued

several directions for according considerations for regularization to those of the writ petitioner who was found entitled to Regularisation under Law

and in the light of discussions made in the judgement. The exercise is to be completed with in six months. The writ petitions of those of the writ

petitioners, who are not entitled to Regularisation, are dismissed.

The counsel Mr. R.A. Khan, submits that the petitioner has completed more than 7 years as daily wager, therefore, he is entitled to

Regularisation under SRO 64 of 1996 read with Government Order No: 355 GAD of 1996 dated 30041996. The counsel further submits that the

petitioner has been engaged in 1979 and worked although. He bas been paid from 1979 to 1985, but thereafter has not been paid for a period of

10 years from 1985 to 1995. He was not even allowed to work from 1985. However, armed with the court direction dated 11 719996 in CMP

No. 1432/96 of SWP. No. 658/95 was reengaged as daily wager by order dated 8.8.1996.

It merits to be taken note of that the Appellants has seven in memo of Appeal admitted that after his alleged engagement in 1979, he worked till

1985 and was paid for the period. From 1985 till 1995, petitioner/appellant alleges that he worked, but was not paid. However, he has not placed

on record to show that the Appellant was actually engaged and/or worked from 19851995. Master Roll for just on week of May and for the

month of June 1983, would hardly do as a proof to show that the Appellant was actually engaged. Even communication of 1993 (AnnexureB)

points out that the Appellant having been disengaged as daily wager laid claim to engagement/wages before the Research Station at Wadoora in

1993, after a gap of 8 years. The appellant came to be reengaged as a daily wager on 11071996, pursuant to the above referred interim direction

of the court. The order of reengagment (AnnexureE) is eloquent proof of this fact.

The judgment has clearly dealt with the legal position on this aspect of the case by reference to and discussion of SRO of 1994 read with prder

26F of 1994. The eligibility for regularisation of a daily rated work/work charge employee under the said statutory rule/Govt. order is distinctly

reproduced and discussed in the judgement. The general principles of law for taking a decision in each individual case is decided by the judgment.

The judgment has enumerated legal propositions as applicable to different situations thrown up and circumstances attending different cases like

these clubbed ones. The principles are discussed to govern the respective cases. The cases do come within the sweep of various prepositions of

law discussed and laid thereto. No exception can be taken to the judgment in as much as the judgment broadly referres to the law, while leaving

application of the culled legal principles to factsituation and circumstances of each case to be considered by the competent authority while

according consideration to Sought/regularization of cases of each of the writ petitioner. Those found entitled to regularization are directed to be

regularized within the stipulated time period and those found not entitled to regularization their petitions to be treated as dismissed.

The counsel contends that the petitioner has been working at least since 1996 for last about 7 years and therefore, he is entitled to regularization

under the statutory rules and orders issued from time by the Government. However, the counsel is overlooking the fact that petitioner has been

engaged in 1996 because there was an interim direction of the court. The engagement order to Appellant daily wages expressly states that the

engagement is in pursuance of the petition of the High Court and that too at the petitioner's own risk and responsibility and subject to final outcome

of the petition. Whether an interim direction can confer benefit of regularization on petitioner is referred benefit of regularization on petitioner is

referred and discussed by the L.d. Single Judge in the Judgment. The position in law about the continuance on a post under an interim order of the

court is:

Thus it is apparent that a daily wager or casual worker against a particular post when acquires a temporary status having worked against the

said post for specified number of days does not acquire as right to be regularized against the said post. He can be considered for regularization in

accordance with the rules. (Extract from State of U.P. v. Raj Karan Singh (1998) 8 SCC 529)

In N. Mohanan v. State of Karala and others, AIR 1997 SC 1896 While negativing contention of regulation of provisional appointment based

on an interim order of Court, the court observed:

.........It is then contended that even though the petitioner has no right to the appointed since he was appointed on the basis of the order of the

court provisionally, the appointment already made should be allowed to be continued and should be regularized. The High Court has negatived this

contenting, and in our view rightly. The interim order is subject to result of outcome of the final adjudication if the petitioner is not successful in the

final decision, the interim order would stand set aside. So appointment by interim order does not create any right nor the petitioner gets any right to

regularization on that basis.

Mere continuance under interim orders of court cannot confer any benefit on the person unless his case is covered by law. If petitioner's case

comes within the sweep of statutory rules and orders on the subject or in absence of Rules is covered by any executive fiat applicable in the field,

the appellant's case for regularization is not barred by the impugned judgement.

In the above view of the matter, we do not find that a case is made out for admittance of this appeal to hearing. Dismissed.