SANTOSH PANDITA KOUL Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) That the petitioner was initially engaged as Casual Labourer on 26/2/1988 and subsequently she was engaged on consolidated wages of Rs.700.00 per month as Junior Assistant. On 4/4/1990, the petitioner proceeded on 84 days maternity leave up to 26/6/1990. After availing the said leave the petitioner was supposed to join her duties in the office of the then Assistant Secretary (Legal) SFC but she did not report for duties and choose to migrate from the Valley due to the conditions which were prevailing in Kashmir Valley at that time. In the year 1997, the Government vide Government order No.56-FST of 1997 dtd. 28/1/1997, all Daily Rated Workers/Consolidated Workers/ Work Charge Employees who had migrated from the Valley were deployed on work in Jammu Province. The said Government order also provided that re-deployed persons shall be brought on regular establishment after completion of seven years service, however, the period from the date of migration till date of deployment, shall not be counted. Accordingly, in terms of the Government order (supra), the petitioner also came to be deployed by virtue of order No.100/J of 1997 dtd. 1/3/1997.

(2.) It is further submitted that when despite representations, services of the petitioner in terms of the Government order (supra) were not regularised she filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.2339/1999 and the said writ petition came to be disposed of by virtue of order dtd. 19/7/2001, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation. Further, it is stated that on failure of the respondents to regularize her services she made a representation praying that without taking in to consideration the break period from 1990 to 1997 she shall be deemed to have completed seven years in the year 1995 and her case for regularization shall be considered from 1995. It is further stated that the services of the petitioner along with other persons came to be regularized by virtue of S.F.C. Order No: 134 of 2004 dtd. 31/8/2004 with effect from 1/4/2002. The petitioner is stated to have represented the respondents for regularizing her services with effect from 1995 instead of 1/4/2002 and in this regard the petitioner has submitted that one Autar Krishan Zutshi was also appointed as Helper on consolidated basis and was subsequently regularized as Accounts Assistant. Further, the petitioner has submitted that several other persons who were appointed as Helper on consolidated basis have since been regularized. The petitioner claims that since she was appointed as Junior Assistant on consolidated basis should have been regularized as Senior Assistant instead of Helper.

(3.) The representation of the petitioner came to be rejected by the respondents in terms of the order dtd. 24/1/2009. The petitioner has challenged the said rejection order through the medium of this writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the regularization order dtd. 31/8/2004 to the extent of treating her to have been regularized from 5/8/1995 as Junior Assistant instead of 1/4/2002. The petitioner has also prayed for fixing her seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistants treating her to have been regularized from 5/8/1995 and placing her at the appropriate place over and above the officials who have been regularized/ appointed after 1995.