POSHA BANO Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners pleaded claim is that they were engaged by Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Wing, Budgam on daily wage basis in 1991 and have not been paid wages. They filed Writ petitions (2979/94 and 2001/94) Same came to be disposed of with direction to respondents to consider petitioners' cases for regularisation under rules. Despite conveyance of the court orders respondents have failed to consider their cases. They were not paid wages even though the payment of wages was subject of correspondence within the department vide Annexures P3, P4, P5 and P6. Petitioners pray for release of wages for the period they worked and to allow them to work till they are absorbed permanently. The counsel further submits that petitioners are entitled to be regularised.

(2.) In reply (filed by Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Wing Budgam - respondent No. 4 on behalf of the respondents) the petition allegation of the petitioners having been engaged as Daily Wagers is countered. It is specifically pleaded that the petitioners were engaged as Casual Labourers for different spells with long intervening breaks only for a total period of 2-1/2 years between 11-6-91 and 31-10-95. The Casual labourers are not covered by SRO 64 of 1994. They cannot be regularised. It is further stated that the two orders of this court in SWP No. 2001/94 and SWP No. 2979/94 (Annexure P1 and P2 of the petition) are covered by the judgment Union of India and others v. Daya Ram rendering both the orders not enforceable. The Annexures P3 to P6 on record are general in nature and are not specific to the two petitions. The two respective court orders of August 8,1994 and January 21, 1994 in SWP 2001/94 and SWP No. 2979/94 filed separately by the two petitioners have been passed without admitting the petitions for hearing, when even other party (respondents) was not served. While disposing of the writ petitions it is noted in the orders that it is not necessary to admit the writ petition to formal hearing for disposal of the case. Both these orders are hit by the following dictum of law laid down in Civil Appeal 74 of 96 (Daya Ram,1997 SLJ 155) :-

(3.) The Apex court while allowing the Appeal in this case held whole order unenforceable as the petition was not admitted and could not be considered on the file of the High Court.