TASLEEM ARIF Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the recommendation of then Minister for PHE, Irrigation, Flood Control and Tourism of the erstwhile State of J&K, the petitioner was engaged as consolidated worker vide order dtd. 12/4/2008. In the year 2009, the respondent No.3 vide order dtd. 1/1/2009 disengaged the petitioner from the service. The petitioner made a representation before the respondent No.3 for release of wages as his wages were withheld and on receipt of the said application, the respondent No.3 rescinded the disengagement order of the petitioner vide order dtd. 24/9/2010. The withheld wages of the petitioner were released in his favour but his subsequent wages were not released which constrained the petitioner to file a writ petition bearing SWP No.2768/2011 for release of wages and regularization of services in accordance with the provisions of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 28/12/2011 and the respondents therein were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services in accordance with the Act (supra) and further the respondents therein were also directed to release the earned wages and till the decision was taken, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service provided he was in position on the post as on that date.

(2.) Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the wages of the petitioner were released but no consideration to his claim for regularization of his services was accorded by the respondents and the petitioner again filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.1525/2014 which was disposed of vide order dtd. 18/7/2014 with a direction to the respondents therein to accord consideration to the petitioner's claim in respect of the averments made in the writ petition but still the respondents did not consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services.

(3.) It is averred in the petition that in the year 2015 the respondent No.3 vide communication dtd. 23/4/2015 addressed to the respondent No.2, recommended that the services of the petitioner be regularized but no decision was taken. Later a report was submitted by the Committee constituted by the Government vide order dtd. 7/7/2021, recommending that the appointments and regularizations (147 in MC Baramulla-Total 1481) since 2001 have been done by the office bearers who were not having the mandate to exercise that authority, so the Government may take an appropriate action in the light of the report. It was simultaneously recommended in the said report that it should also be taken into consideration that if action against these employees is initiated, including their disengagement, then the functioning of these Municipal Councils/Committees will be hampered to a large extent as these employees form a substantial part of workforce in these councils/committees. It is further averred that the respondent No.2 vide order dtd. 25/5/2022 directed the respondent No.3 to disengage the petitioner by passing speaking order and on the basis of order dtd. 25/5/2022, the respondent No.3 issued an order dtd. 1/6/2022, stating that pursuant to the directions of the respondent No.2 and subsequent examination of the records pertaining to the case, the services of the petitioner are disengaged with immediate effect.