GH AHMAD BHAT Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition SWP No. 1534/98 filed by Review Petitioners was dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge on 24.8.1999 after observing that the Petitioners casual labourers are not covered by SRO 64 of 94 for regularization and that they have no right to seek continuance as such casual labourers, though their continuance on need basis by the employer is permissible.

(2.) AGAINST this Judgment, writ petitioners filed LPA 24 of 1998. The Division Bench after taking note of salient feature of the case and material facts and circumstances having bearing on the question and on examination of provisions of the J&K Daily Rated Workers, Work Charged Employees (Regulation) Rules, 1994 (SRO 64 of 1994) on discussion, held: (i) that the above rules (SRO 64) apply only to Daily Rated Workers and Work Charged Employees and not to Casual labour/workers or seasonal labour/workers, and (ii) the above rules, do not confer any indefeasible right on a Daily Rated Worker to continue in engagement for 7 years to enable him to get a right to be considered for regularisation.

(3.) THIS finding was in pare -materia with what was held in Rabinder Paul v. Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, 1997 SLJ 131. The decisions contrary to the above finding of the Division Bench by the Single Bench(s) in Smt. Sudesh Kapoor v. State, 1995 SLJ 51, Abdul Hamid Shah v. State, 1998 SLJ 20, State v. Abdul Raheem Reshi, 1999 SLJ 488, Bashir Ahmad Dhobi v. State, 1999 KLJ 273 and Nasir Ahmad Dar v. State, 1999 SLJ 536, were set aside and held not laying good law. On the aforesaid finding, the Division Bench found no merits in the appeal and, therefore, appeal was dismissed.