ABDUL RASHID NAIK Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as a daily wager in the Social Forestry Department by respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 1st April, 1993 in Gujjar Nar Closure in Tehsil Banihal. It is contended that he has been performing his duties as a daily rated worker w.e.f. April, 1993 without any break, but, has not been regularised as yet by the respondents. Petitioner also made an application for regularization of his services, but, all in vain.

(2.) Vide Order No. 144-GAD of 2001 dated 02.02.2001, General Administration Department ordered that all the daily rated workers, who were appointed after imposition of ban, i.e., after 31.01.1994 and were performing their duties be paid their wages upto 31.01.2001 and thereafter their services be disengaged. Since the petitioner was appointed before the aforesaid ban, he was allowed to continue. It is also contended that after discharging/dis-banning the casual labourers, who were engaged after 31.01.1994, some Units in the Social Forestry Department remained without watch and ward. In order to meet the aforesaid requirement and in the interest of administration, the Block Officers/Forester Banihal/Khari submitted a proposal to respondent No. 4 for adjustment of daily wagers, who were engaged before the imposition of ban. Accordingly, petitioner was transferred to Wagon Extension Closure and was shown at S.No.1 in the said proposal, which came to be approved by respondent No. 4 on 30.06.2001, but, the respondents have not regularised his services.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition (SWP No. 1017/2003) for regularization of his services, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 07.07.2003 directing the respondents to treat the writ petition as representation and examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the averments made in the writ petition. When his case was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner filed a contempt petition bearing COA(S) No. 6-B of 2004. Respondents filed the statement of facts pleading therein that since the petitioner was engaged on 01.04.1994, i.e. after 31.03.1994, therefore, he was not entitled to regularization. Accordingly, his case came to be rejected by the respondents vide Order No. 621-25/SF/RBN dated 20.10.2003. In view of the rejection order, contempt proceedings were dropped vide order dated 26.05.2005 with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the rejection order.