GH HASSAN MIR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Letters Patent Appeal No. 241/19998 has been directed against order dated 6th April, 1998 passed in writ petition, SWP No. 2509/94, by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition. Letters Patent Appeal No. 283/98 has been directed against order dated 19th August, 1998 passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition, SWP No. 90/98, dismissing the writ petition. Letters Patent Appeal No. 283/98 has been directed against dated 19th August, 1998 passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition, SWP No. 90/98, dismissing the writ petition. Since the two appeals involve identical relevant facts and common questions of law and, in fact, the two appeals have been clubbed together, therefore, we proceed to dispose of both the appeals by this common order. However, while adverting to the facts and the observations made in the impugned judgements, we would refer only to the judgement out of which LPA No. 241/98 arises as, out of the total number of fifty -nine appellants, fifty eight persons are appellants in the said LPA.

(2.) THE appellants are contingent paid employees, working as safaiwallas in the Education Department. The case of the writ -petitioners namely, the appellants, is that the respondents have been utilising their service in different offices and Schools for more than one decade and that they are working for the whole day, but are being paid Rs. 25/ - to Rs. 250/ - per month. Their case further is that, on account of the nature of their job, they are bound to perform their duties regularly in the Schools from morning till evening and, as such they are entitled to the minimum wages as are being paid to other daily -rated workers. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the appellants with regard to payment of minimum wages on the ground that the appellants do not render the services as are being discharged by the daily -wagers, who have to work for minimum hours on a day, whereas the appellants are performing the duty for limited hours. The contention of the appellants, that similarly situated contingent employees have been adjusted against class IV posts by the respondents, has also been rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that if an illegality has been committed in case of others, the same cannot be allowed to be committed in the case of the appellants. The learned Single Judge also observed that in case this contention of the appellants is accepted, then the State would have to be directed to create new posts in the category of Class IV, not only equal to the number of appellants, but for all Safaiwallas, who discharge their duties for an hour or so in a day. The appellants have come in appeal against the said judgement and order of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the attendance register duly signed by the Zonal Education Officer concerned, showing that the appellants have been working on full -time basis. It is contended that the appellants are not only entitled to the minimum wages, but their services are to be regularised. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the appellants are contingent paid employees and are not working against regular posts, nor they are engaged as full -time workers and, therefore, neither their services can be regularised nor they can be paid the minimum wages, as they are working only for an hour or so in a day.