SHAFIQA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Sweeper in the year 1977 vide order dt. 10th of Feb77 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, National Highway, Forest Division, Batote. It is stated that the petitioner was thereafter adjusted against a newly created post of Sweeper on monthly salary of Rs. 150/ -. Thereafter the pay of the petitioner was fixed in the regular grade of Rs. 345 -460 in terms of SRO No. 91 of 1982. It is further stated that in the year 1991, the petitioner was given the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 750 -940/ - and the arrears of the salary were also released in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is now drawing her salary in the grade of Rs. 2550 -3200/ -. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 536/97, which was disposed of with a direction that respondents would treat the same as a notice of demand and after considering the case of the petitioner shall take a decision within a period of three months. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this court, the claim of the petitioner was considered and the same has been rejected vide order dt. 3rd of Sept 01, passed by respondent No.2, on the ground that the petitioner is a part time sweeper and the post against which she is working is on consolidated basis and not a regular one. It is this order which is being impugned in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and the petitioner has made the following substantive prayers: - -

(2.) ON notice, respondents have filed objections in which it is stated that the petitioner was engaged as a part time sweeper vide order dt. 10th of Feb77 at the rate of Rs.40/ - per month. The petitioner was then adjusted against a sanctioned post of Sweeper in Forest Division, Batote on consolidated pay of Rs.150/ - per month and the petitioner performed the duties from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. only. It is further pleaded that due to inadvertence and some misunderstanding the then Divisional Forest Officer, Batote had released the minimum basic grade in her favour in total violation of the Government Order and that mis -understanding does not vest any right with the petitioner to claim regularization or to claim that the petitioner stands regularized

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record