KULDEEP KUMAR AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners seek quashment of Order No. 43-E of 2013 dated 01.06.2013 issued by respondent No.3- Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Department, Jammu, rejecting therein the claim of the petitioners on the ground that SRO 64 of 1994 is not applicable. Further, they seek a direction to the respondents to regularize their services on the post of Class-IV against which they are working since 1991 and to give them effect from the date they completed seven years of service and at par with similarly situated persons like Hem Raj and Ashok Kumar.

(2.) Briefly stated the material facts are that petitioners were engaged on daily wages basis on 26.09.1991 in the Public Health Engineering Department of the State. Respondents extended their services after appreciating their services from time to time and they are continuously performing their duties since 26.09.1991 till date. It is contended that after completion of seven years, respondent No.5-Executive Engineer, Public Health Department, Mechanical Procurement Division, Jammu intimated respondent No.4-Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Mechanical Urban Circle, Jammu that both the petitioners were engaged on 26.09.1991 as daily rated workers. Further vide communication dated 22.03.2001 respondent No.5 informed respondent No.4 that proposal for regularization of daily rated workers stand submitted vide his office letters dated 13.05.1999 and 16.01.2001, however he enclosed fresh statement/proposal of four daily rated workers with said communication dated 22.03.2001 for their regularization in which petitioners again figured at Sl. No.3& 4. It is again vide communication of respondent No.5, dated 25.04.2006, i.e after five years, respondent No.5 was informed about regularization case of petitioners. It is averred in the said communication that requisite information regarding the regularization of petitioners also stand supplied vide letters dated 19.07.2005, 06.08.2005 and 24.02.2006. Further it is mentioned in the communication dated 20.12.2007 of respondent No.5 addressed to respondent No.4 that requisite information regarding regularization of petitioners who are yet to be regularized, working under the control of respondent No.5 stands already submitted.

(3.) It is crystal clear from Annexures-C to K, appended with the petition that petitioners were found eligible and accordingly their case for regularization was also forwarded to higher authorities but instead of petitioners, some similarly situated persons namely, Hem Raj and Ashok Kumar were regularized ignoring the claim of petitioners. Over non-consideration and in action on part of respondents-authority, petitioners earlier had approached this Court through SWP No.1522/2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 15.09.2012 with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to regularization of the petitioners having regard to the averments made in the petition and documents placed on record as also the rules governing the matter, within a period of eight weeks. It is contended that when respondents did not comply with the directions passed in SWP No.1522/2012, petitioners filed contempt petition to which statement of facts was also filed enclosing Order No. 43-E of 2013 dated 01.06.2013, by virtue of which case of petitioners was considered and accordingly rejected. Feeling aggrieved of rejection order dated 01.06.2013, petitioners knock portals of this Court again through this writ petition.