SUSHMA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved of order dt. 17th of Aug'09, passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby their claim for salary has been rejected.

(2.) PETITIONERS were the employees of erstwhile Milk Federation, Jammu, working against the posts of Accounts Assistant and Computer Operator respectively. After the winding up of the aforementioned Milk Federation, its employees were absorbed in other departments of the State in pursuance to a Cabinet decision No. 68/05 dt. 13th of Feb'04. As the Petitioners were not given the said benefit and were also not paid the salary, they filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 598/2005. During the pendency of the aforementioned petition, the Petitioners were also absorbed and paid their salary from Dec'02 to Nov'04. Regarding unpaid salary, the Petitioners filed representations before the authority concerned. Meanwhile, vide order dt. 16th of May'08, the aforementioned writ petition filed by the Petitioners came to be disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Respondents therein for considering the case of the Petitioners for release of unpaid salary in their favour on the analogy of similarly situated employees.

(3.) THE grievance of the Petitioners is that during the intervening period for which they have not been paid their salary, they worked with Respondent No. 4, regaining which necessary information was not given to Respondent No. 2, by Respondent No. 3, which led to the rejection of their claim for payment of the salary. It is asserted that the ground taken in the order impugned for rejecting the claim was one of the objection raised by the Respondents before this Court in writ petition, SWP No. 598/2005, which was decided by order dt. 16th of May'08. The said objection was not accepted by this Court while passing the aforementioned order and, as such, the order impugned now passed by the Respondents on the same ground is in violation of the directions already issued by this Court. It is stated that till the permanent absorption of the Petitioner in other department in pursuance to the Cabinet decision, referred to above, they remained continuously working with the Respondent No. 4, who had communicated this fact to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and also requested them to release the unpaid salary of the Petitioners but the said aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration by the authority concerned who has passed the order impugned.