Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mir Basharat Ahmad vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 23 December, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
S. No.16
Regular List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No.700/2021
MIR BASHARAT AHMAD
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -Mr.B.A.Tak, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
Through: -Mr.Mubashir Majid Malik, Dy.AG
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Dt:23.12.2024
1. The petitioner has sought a direction upon the respondents for
regularization of his services in terms of SRO 520 of 2017 notified
on 21.12.2017 (The Jammu and Kashmir Casual and other Workers,
Regular Engagement Rules, 2017).
2. According to the petitioner his land was acquired by the
Respondent Department for construction of Sump cum Pump House
and Production Well at WSS Quil Muqam, Bandipora and in lieu
thereof he was engaged as a casual labourer in terms of Order
No.PH-1112 dated 16.01.2013. It has been submitted that the
petitioner has been in continuous engagement with the respondents
against monthly wages of Rs.6975/-. It has been also submitted that
WP(C) No.700/2021 Page 1 of 5
the respondents have not released the wages in favour of the
petitioner and in this regard the respondents have exchanged a
number of communications inter-se. It has been further submitted
that the petitioner is eligible for linking of his Aadhar for online
registration for Aadhar Based Biometric identification and Skill
Profiling, which is mandatory under SRO 520 dated 21.12.2017 and
in this regard the petitioner approached the respondent department a
number of times. As a result of inaction of the respondents, the
wages are not being paid to the petitioner despite performing his
duties. It has been claimed that the petitioner is entitled to
regularization of his services in terms of SRO 520 of 2017 dated
21.12.2017.
3. The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition in
which they have submitted that a piece of land measuring 12 Marlas
situated in village Quil Muqam, Bandipora has been donated by
father of the petitioner for construction of Sump cum Pump House
and Production Well at WSS Quil Muqam. It has been submitted
that the land owner has donated his proprietary land to the
respondent Department and in lieu thereof has sought engagement of
his son, the petitioner herein. The respondents have admitted that
the petitioner has been engaged as a casual labourer in PHE, Sub
Division, Bandipora in terms of Order No.1112 dated 16.01.2013 in
lieu of the land donated by him. According to the respondents the
scheme was shifted to languishing project and since then the wages,
which are yet to be paid to the petitioner, have been suspended.
WP(C) No.700/2021 Page 2 of 5
According to the respondents since the petitioner had donated only
12 Marlas of land, as such, he did not fulfill the minimum criteria for
engagement as Labourer in lieu of the donated land. It has been
submitted that minimum land donation qualifying for benefit under
SRO 520 of 2017 is one kanal of proprietary land. The respondents
have, however, submitted that the case of the petitioner for monetary
compensation can be processed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case.
5. There is no dispute to the fact that the respondents have taken
over the land measuring 12 Marlas belonging to father of the
petitioner for construction of Sump cum Pump House and
Production Well at WSS Quil Muqam, Bandipora. It has also not
been disputed that in lieu thereof the petitioner was engaged as
casual labourer in terms of communication dated 16.01.2013. The
contention of the respondents is that because the petitioner does not
fulfill the eligibility criteria of donation of minimum one kanal of
land, as such, he cannot be granted the benefit of SRO 520 of 2017.
Learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that even
otherwise SRO 520 of 2017 stands repealed now and, as such, there
is no question of considering the case of petitioner for regularization
of his service in terms of the said SRO. The respondents have not
denied that the petitioner is on their rolls as a casual labourer and in-
fact they have admitted that his wages have been suspended as the
scheme was shifted to languishing project.
WP(C) No.700/2021 Page 3 of 5
6. Once the respondents have admitted that they have taken over
12 Marlas of land belonging to the petitioner/his father, either they
have to honour their commitment to engage the petitioner in terms of
SRO 520 of 2017 dated 21.12.2017, which according to the
respondents stands repealed, or they have to pay compensation to the
petitioner for the acquired land in accordance with law. The
respondents cannot deny the employment to the petitioner and at the
same time refuse to pay land compensation to him. Right to property
is a constitutional right and the said right of the petitioner cannot be
taken away by the respondents, except in due course of law, meaning
thereby, that the respondents have either to pay compensation to the
petitioner for the land taken over by them or they have to provide
employment to him. The respondents are also obliged to pay to the
petitioner the wages for the period for which he has actually worked
with them.
7. Since the respondents have expressed their inability to appoint
the petitioner on account of repealing of SRO 520 of 2017 and also
on account of fact that the petitioner is not eligible for being granted
benefit of SRO 520 of 2017, the only option available with the
respondents is to acquire the land in question in accordance with law
and pay compensation to the petitioner/land owner.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the
respondents to initiate steps for acquisition of the land in question
and conclude the same by paying compensation to the petitioner in
accordance with law relating to land acquisition which is in vogue at
WP(C) No.700/2021 Page 4 of 5
present. The needful shall be done by the respondents within a
period of six months from today. It is further directed that the
respondents shall pay the wages due to the petitioner for the period
for which he has worked with them and not to disengage him till the
land compensation is paid to the petitioner/land owner.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
23.12.2024
Sarveeda Nissar
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Sarveeda Nissar WP(C) No.700/2021 Page 5 of 5
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
every page at bottom left side
26.12.2024 17:10