DAYA KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants submits that they having served the State in very difficult times most reverently should not be made to fall on thorns to bleed forcing them to lead a life of misery and penury. They submit that when the State of Jammu and Kashmir was facing turmoil and turbulence on account of militancy (which is said to be at that point of time at its peak in the district Doda), they came to be engaged to look after and carry on electrification work and other departmental activities in the Power Development Department. It is submitted that on account of the area becoming unsafe, good number of people and employees migrated to the districts other than the district of Doda. The appellants submit that it was during this period they came forward to help the State administration. It is submitted that on account of the service rendered by them not only the State administration but the army authorities were benefited. They were able to combat terrorism. The fact that the State administration has admitted that there was shortage of regular staff in the Tehsil of Gandoh in the district of Doda and a need was felt to maintain the power supply which was essential not only for the civil administration but also for the benefit of armed forces is not denied. The appellants were engaged as daily wagers. This engagement was made by respondent No. 5 with the concurrence of respondent No.3. However as on a latter date a ban came to be imposed on the employment of daily wagers, the appellants services came to be disengaged. The appellants submit that this assertion of theirs that they were engaged by respondent No. 5 and that they had rendered service in difficult period is evident and becomes apparent when the objections preferred by the State are perused. Particular emphasis is being laid on what is said in paragraph 3 and 5 of the objections. It is submitted that in these circumstances, their disengagement was contrary to law. It is also urged that some recommendations were made in favour of the appellants. These have been placed on the record of writ petition as annexure A/1, A/2 and A/3. The recommendations were to the effect that the policy decision taken with a view to impose the ban be relaxed. This suggestion however, was not acceptable to the State Government. The claims of the appellants were rejected vide letter, copy whereof is annexure p/6 to the writ petition. When this petition came up for motion hearing, interim orders were passed. These were to the effect that if the appellants were working on the date when the interim orders were passed then they be permitted to continue.

(2.) A learned Single Judge of this court after appreciating the factual position came to the conclusion that once the State administration took a decision to not to relax the policy and regularise the services of the appellants then that decision is the last word on the subject. No judicial review is permissible. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. It is in these circumstances, the present appeal has been preferred under clause 12 of the Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are communications on the record. These are to the effect that the appellants have continued to work as daily wagers with the Power Development Department from June 1994 to 1997. These certificates have been signed by Assistant Executive Engineer Sub Division Thatri.