LAL HUSSAIN Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellants praying setting aside of the judgment passed in SWP No.315/2003 dtd. 9/4/2019 in case titled 'Lal Hussain and others v. State and others', whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners being bereft of any merit.

(2.) The case set up in the writ petition by the writ petitioners briefly was that they were working as Gang Coolies/Daily Wagers and had completed more than 9 years continuous service. According to the petitioners, they were engaged prior to the year 1994. It is on record that petitioners had moved an application before the Chief Engineer, PWD(R&B), Poonch, that since they were working in the Department for the last 10 years, but they had not been declared as permanent employees in terms of government order governing the field; that every casual labourer who has completed 07 years of service must be confirmed. The said application was duly endorsed by the concerned MLA. Petitioners further case was that since they worked more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year, they should have been given the benefit of judgment of Division Bench of this court in case titled Abdul Rehman Bahroo v. State of J&K and others, 2001 (3) SCT 531 (J&K). It was further pleaded by the petitioners that they remained continuously working up to January 2004, their services were not terminated but in pursuance of Govt. Order No.144 GAD of 2001 dtd. 2/2/2001, they were ordered to be disengaged pursuant impugned communication dtd. 23/12/2002, but in fact their services were not terminated. It is alleged by the petitioners that the proforma respondent who was one of the writ petitioners namely Azmat Hussain Shah as petitioner no.8 is still working continuously with the respondents. Writ petitioners have annexed certain official documents including Muster Roll showing the continuous working of the petitioners up to the year 2004.

(3.) The respondents in the writ petition have taken a specific stand that the writ petitioners were engaged as special laborers on different works against the sanctioned estimates for specific period. They have alleged that the writ petitioners were engaged as special laborers that too after the year 1994, so they were discharged/disengaged in terms of Government order No.144-GAD of 2001 dtd. 2/2/2001. It is submitted by the respondents that this appeal is sans merit and be dismissed out rightly with heavy costs.