Om Singh vs State Of J&K And Ors

Petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned Order bearing No. 50 ASH of 2004 dated 31.03.2004 and also a writ of mandamus

commanding the official respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 w.e.f. 31.06.1999 when the petitioner

completes the tenure of 7 years of service as daily rated worker and he may be considered in continuous service and also given all consequential

benefits and be paid his salary, arrears etc. w.e.f April 1999 till date with interest.

Brief facts of the case which led the petitioner to file this petition are that the petitioner was appointed on daily rated basis for a period of 30 days

vide Order No. 4/282-87 dated 25.06.92 on the recommendations of respondent No.5, i.e., Director Animal Husbandry, Jammu, Poultry Development

Officer, Doda his engagement was further extended from time to time. The case of the petitioner is that after completing seven years of continuous

service, he approached the respondents for regularization of his services in terms of SRO 64 of 1994, but the same was denied to him.

It is submitted that aggrieved of this non-consideration, he filed SWP No. 1129/99 earlier, seeking regularization of his services as Class IV

employee in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 and also for releasing of his pay w.e.f April, 1999. This writ petition was disposed of on 04.06.1999 with a

direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the observations made in the aforesaid judgment.

Respondents filed an appeal against the judgment dated 04.06.1999 passed in SWP No. 1129/1999 but the appeal was dismissed vide judgment

dated 13.07.2000.

Thereafter, respondents considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same by passing an order dated 14.03.2001. The petitioner

challenged the above order before this Court wherein it was held that the respondents/Government was under obligation to allow the petitioner to

continue for seven years and, thereafter, regularize the service of the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 14.02.2002 has held that the view

expressed by the respondents vide order dated 14.03.2001 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and the petitioner was held entitled to

regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. Respondents were again directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in terms of the observations made

in judgment dated 14.02.2002.

Respondents again rejected the case of the petitioner for regularization vide Government Order No. 50 ASH of 2004 dated 31.03.2004. This

impugned order of rejection dated 31.03.2004 passed by way of Government Order No. 50 ASH of 2004 dated 31.03.2004 is contrary to earlier order

of rejection dated 14.03.2001 passed in pursuant to judgment dated 04.06.1999 in SWP No. 1129/1999 whereby the case of the petitioner was rejected

only on the ground that he has not completed 7 years of service as daily rated worker/casual labourer and his service is short of few months, i.e., 2

months.

It is submitted that the official respondents by passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2004 have tried to sit over the judgment passed by the

Hon’ble Court and have acted as a court of appeal and the same is contemptuous and goes against the spirit and finding of the judgment of this

Court dated 14.02.2002 passed in SWP 2034/2001.

Further contention of the petitioner is that petitioner, who was appointed before 31.03.1994 as per Rule 8 of SRO 64 of 1994 is required to be

regularized and allowed to complete his service tenure of 7 years by the end of subsequent financial year. Reliance is placed upon two earlier

judgments passed by this Court reported in 1999 KLJ 330 and 2000 SLJ 365 and pleaded that impugned order dated 31.03.2004 has been passed in

violation of the judgment referred to hereinabove. The order of 2004 has been challenged by the petitioner after rendering more than 7 years of

service. It is submitted that since he was disengaged w.e.f. 27.04.1999, therefore, he does not fall under the purview of SRO 64 of 1994, which

clearly indicates that the services of only those daily rated workers who have completed seven years of continuous service and engaged before

31.03.1994 are being regularized. It is submitted that reconsideration orders dated 31.03.2004 and 14.03.2001 nowhere stand in contradiction as the

basic premises of both the orders stand on the fact that the regularization of only daily wagers is to be made under SRO 64 and casual labourers are

not covered under this SRO.

The case made out by the petitioner is that his order of rejection dated 31.03.2004 has not been communicated to him, however, the respondents in

their objections have placed a copy in which the said order was also endorsed to the petitioner. Thus, petitioner has not challenged this order for nearly

7 ½ years, therefore, this petition suffers from delay and latches.

This writ Court while considering the question of delay and latches has held in case S. D. O. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd and others v. Timudu

Oram, (2005) 6 SCC 156:-

“… The subsequent suit or writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the dismissal of the suit. The writ petition was filed after a lapse of

10 years. No reasons have been given for such an inordinate delay. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition after a lapse of 10 years. In

such a case, awarding of compensation in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be justified…..â€​

In Cheripalli Madar v. Assistant Division Engineers and others, (2005) 11 SCC 546, writ petition was filed after 3 years of the impugned order

passed by the concerned authorities. Thus, the Court has held that the petition was filed after a delay of three years, naturally the High Court was not

inclined to interfere with the matter because of latches.

The order impugned rejecting the claim of the petitioner has not been challenged by the petitioner for more than 7 years, therefore, in view of the

inordinate delay, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered, thus, this petition is without any merit and dismissed accordingly.

Dismissed alongwith IA, if any.