LAWS(J&K)-2022-5-83

GULZAR HUSSAIN Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

Decided On May 30, 2022
Gulzar Hussain Appellant
V/S
Union Territory Of JAndK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of leaned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner was engaged as SPO in the year 2013 in the District Police, Samba and was allotted Belt No. 38/DS. The petitioner was disengaged by the respondent No. 4 vide order No. 15/1118-22/DPOs dtd. 11/2/2015. The petitioner being aggrieved of this order preferred SWP No. 1770/2016 which came to be disposed of by the court vide order dtd. 26/12/2017. The respondents were directed by the court to pass fresh orders after giving the petitioner opportunity of being heard. It appears that the petitioner was disengaged as the allegations of malpractice was levelled against him. The respondent No. 4 vide order No. 14 dtd. 9/1/2019 exonerated the petitioner of the charges and reengaged the petitioner as SPO who was allotted a new service Belt No. 11/GS. The petitioner submits that since then he is working as such with the official respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is still being given Rs.6000.00 as monthly honorarium whereas the order No. Home-1422 dtd. 23/10/2018 sanctioned increase of Rs.9000.00 per month as honorarium of SPOs who have completed five years of service. As he has completed more than five years service as he was engaged in the year 2013, he is entitled to enhance honorarium. The petitioner also seeks honorarium from March 2018 to December 2018 for the period he remained disengaged as SPO.

(3.) The objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents wherein the factual position as stated in the petition is not disputed by the respondents. However, the stand of the respondent is that the petitioner has been re-engaged as SPO and given Belt No. 11/GS vide order No. 14 of 2019 dtd. 9/1/2019, passed by the SSP Samba. The petitioner being re-engaged as per the aforesaid order of 2019 therefore he cannot claim any benefit of the order passed by the respondents in the year 2018 or claim honorarium for the period he remained disengaged.