Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mohammad Amin Wani vs State Ellaquai Dehati Bank on 23 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Serial No. 5
Regular Causelist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
LPA No. 132/2021 In SWP No. 264/2016
c/w LPA No. 133/2021
(i) LPA No. 132/2021:-
1.Mohammad Amin Wani
S/O: Ghulam Mohammad Wani
R/O: Dooru Verinag.
2. Mohammad Sultan Mir
S/O: Abdul Ahad Mir
R/O Ishber Nishat Srinagar
3. Abdul Hamid Sheikh
S/O: Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Sheikh
R/O: Kulgam
...Appellant(s)
Through: - Mr. Mian Tufail, Advocate
Vs.
1. State Ellaquai Dehati Bank, through its Chairman, 3rd
Floor Nirmaan Complex, I.G. Road, Barzulla Srinagar.
2. State Ellaquai Dehati, Bank through its General
Manager, 3rd Floor Nirmaan Complex, I.G. Road, Barzulla
Srinagar.
3. Manager Ellaquai Dehatib Bank, Khag Budgam
4. Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Bidder Kokernag
5. Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Gupt Ganga Ishber Nishat,
Srinagar.
6. Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Tarigam Kulgam
...RESPONDENT(S)
Through:- Mr. Shakir Haqani, Advocate with
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Mr. Asif Wani, Advocate
24.07.25
(ii) LPA No. 133/2021:-
1. Mohammad Sultan Mir
S/O: Abdul Ahad Mir
R/O Ishber Nishat Srinagar
2. Mohammad Amin Wani
S/O: Ghulam Mohamma Wani
R/O: Dooru Verinag
3.Abdul Hamid Sheikh
S/O: Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Sheikh
R/O: Kulgam
4. Basharat Ahmad Lone
S/O: Late Mohammad Shafi Lone
R/O: Chandergee, Kulgam
5. Aamir Nazir Mir
S/O: Nazir Ahmad Mir
R/O: Kanjikulla, Kulgam
6.Abid Shamsu-Din
S/O: Shamsu-Din Mir
R/O: Kanjikulla, Kulgam
7.Abdul Rouf Wani
S/O: Feroz Ahmad Wani
R/O: Pahloo, Kulgam
8.Firdous Ahmad Lone
S/O: Mohammad Shafi Lone
R/O: Chandergee, Kulgam
9.Waseem Ahmad Zargar
S/O: Nazir Ahmad Zargar
R/O: Devsar, Kulgam
10.Shabir Ahmad Bhat
S/O: Abdul Rashid Bhat
R/O: Khiram Anantnag
MIR ARIF MANZOOR LPA No. 132/2021 C/W LPA No. 133/2021
I attest to the accuracy and
Page No. 2
authenticity of this document
24.07.25
11. Sameer Ahmad Khan
S/O: Ghulam Mohammad Khan
R/O: Zalangam Kokernag, Anantnag
...Appellant(s)
Through: - Mr. Mian Tufail, Advocate
Vs.
1. State Ellaquai Dehati Bank, through its Chairman, 3rd
Floor Nirmaan Complex, I.G. Road, Barzulla Srinagar.
2. State Ellaquai Dehati, Bank through its General
Manager, 3rd Floor Nirmaan Complex, I.G. Road, Barzulla
Srinagar.
3. Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Gupt Ganga Ishber Nishat,
Srinagar.
4. Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Khag Budgam
5. Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Bidder Kokernag
6. Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Tarigam Kulgam
7. Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Sader Bazar, Kulgam
8. Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Yaripora Kulgam
9. Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Harman, Shopian
10. Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Pahloo, Kulgam
11. Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Khull, Kulgam
12. Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Devsar Kulgam
13. Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Kanilwan, Anantnag
14. 14.Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Wailoo, Anantnag.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Through:- Mr. Shakir Haqani, Advocate with
Mr. Asif Wani, Advocate
MIR ARIF MANZOOR LPA No. 132/2021 C/W LPA No. 133/2021
I attest to the accuracy and
Page No. 3
authenticity of this document
24.07.25
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
23.07.2025.
Per: Sanjeev Kumar-J: (Oral)
(i) LPA No. 132/2021:-
1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits
that he does not want to press this appeal and the same be
dismissed as such.
2. Statement of learned counsel for the appellants is
taken on record and the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
(ii) LPA No. 133/2021:-
3. In this appeal filed by as many as eleven persons, an
order and judgment dated 01.10.2021, passed by the
learned Single Bench of this Court [“the writ Court”] in SWP
No. 173/2018 and three other clubbed matters is under
challenge.
4. At the outset Mr. Mian Tufail, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, made a statement at the bar
that other than appellant No. 1-Mohammad Sultan Mir, in
LPA No. 133/2021, the other appellants are not interested to
pursue their appeal. On the statement made by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the appeal, insofar as it pertains
to appellants 2 to 11 in LPA No. 133/2021 is dismissed as
not pressed.
MIR ARIF MANZOOR LPA No. 132/2021 C/W LPA No. 133/2021
I attest to the accuracy and
Page No. 4
authenticity of this document
24.07.25
5. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by
Mr. Mian Tufail, learned counsel for the appellant-
Mohammad Sultan Mir, we deem it appropriate to take note
of a few admitted facts.
6. The appellant who was 10+2, came to be engaged in
the Respondent-Bank at Gupt Ganga, Ishber Nishat,
Srinagar, in the year 2006. As per the Respondent Bank, the
engagement of the appellant-Mohammad Sultan Mir, was
only part time and for performing the duties of Safai
Karamchari/Sweeper. The appellant continued to perform
the aforesaid duties and was paid a meager amount of Rs.
1500/- in the beginning, which amount came to be raised
from time to time. It was only in the year 2016 when the
Respondent Bank decided to engage the services of Safai
Karamchari and other menial workers from outsourcing.
The appellant approached this Court by way of SWP No.
671/2015, claiming inter alia a direction to the Respondent-
Bank to regularize his services against the post of Sweeper
held by him for the last about two decades.
7. The writ petition was resisted by the Respondent-Bank.
In their reply affidavit filed before the writ Court, it was
submitted that in the absence of any policy of regularization
framed by the Bank, the appellant cannot claim the
regularization of his services. The engagement of the
appellant and his continuation in the Bank was not
MIR ARIF MANZOOR LPA No. 132/2021 C/W LPA No. 133/2021
I attest to the accuracy and
Page No. 5
authenticity of this document
24.07.25
specifically denied by the respondents. However, it was
submitted that he had been working, like many others,
without any formal order of engagement for upkeeping the
cleanliness and sanitation of the branches. It was also the
stand of the Respondent Bank before the writ Court that the
appellant was being hired by the concerned Branch Manager
for contingency work i.e., sweeping and cleaning the branch
premises from time to time, and was paid remuneration
against the work done.
8. The respondents in their reply affidavit also did not
dispute the fact that for making regular
engagements/appointments of the Sweepers and other
menial workers, the Respondent Bank had initiated a
process of recruitment, but submitted that process of
recruitment was not connected with the engagement of the
appellant directly or indirectly. It is, however, not pleaded by
the respondents anywhere as to what happened to the
process of recruitment which was undertaken. However,
from the record, it seems that the process of recruitment
was abandoned in view of the decision of the Management of
the Bank to engage such staff through outsourcing.
9. The writ petition was considered by the writ Court in
the light of the contentions raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and also the material available on
record. The writ Court came to the conclusion that the
MIR ARIF MANZOOR LPA No. 132/2021 C/W LPA No. 133/2021
I attest to the accuracy and
Page No. 6
authenticity of this document
24.07.25
appellant, being a part time temporary worker, had no right
to seek regularization in the absence of a policy of
regularization framed by the Bank. The writ Court also
observed that it is not within the scope of judicial review to
issue a mandamus to the Respondent-Bank to frame a
policy for regularization. The judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled “State of Jammu
& Kashmir and Ors. Vs. District Bar Association,
Bandipora, AIR 2017, SC11, 2017″, was relied upon by
the writ Court. This is how the writ Court, vide judgment
impugned, dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. It is
this judgment of the writ Court which the appellant is
aggrieved of and is assailed before us in this appeal.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record, we are of the considered
opinion that the judgment of the writ Court insofar as it
pertains to the appellant who, alone is aggrieved, deserves to
be set aside. Indisputably, the appellant has been
performing the menial job of sweeping in the Bank branch
for about the last nineteen years. It is true that the services
of the appellant were utilized by the Bank to perform the
duties of a Safai Karamchari/Sweeper without there being
any formal order of engagement issued by any Competent
Authority. The appellant was engaged by the Incharge of the
Branch to cater to the specific need of maintaining
MIR ARIF MANZOOR LPA No. 132/2021 C/W LPA No. 133/2021
I attest to the accuracy and
Page No. 7
authenticity of this document
24.07.25
cleanliness and hygiene in the Branch and the appellant
was remunerated for the aforesaid work by paying him
wages at different rates from time to time. The Bank account
appended by the appellant with this appeal fortifies the
aforesaid factual position.
11. It cannot be denied that the job of maintaining
cleanliness and sanitation in the branch is required to be
performed by a Sweeper recruited directly by the Bank after
following a due process of law. It also needs to be taken note
of that a regular Sweeper in the Bank would not receive a
salary less than fifty thousand per month. It seems that with
a view to save the expenditure and take the benefit of
rampant unemployment in the valley, the respondent-Bank
decided to exploit the services of an educated youth. This is
how the services of the appellant came to be utilized in the
branch concerned.
12. The Bank acted very smartly and extracted the services
from the appellant without even handing over to him any
formal order of engagement. We could understand that such
illegality or irregularity might have been committed by the
Branch Head alone, but there is nothing on record to show
that the Management of the Bank ever initiated any action
against the heads of such branches where such menial
workers were engaged out of contingency funds/local funds
of the branches. No such circular issued by the Management
MIR ARIF MANZOOR LPA No. 132/2021 C/W LPA No. 133/2021
I attest to the accuracy and
Page No. 8
authenticity of this document
24.07.25
advising the Bank branches not to continue with such
engagements was brought to our notice by the learned
counsel appearing for the Bank. It is a case of sheer
exploitation of labour, which is prohibited by the
Constitution of India.
13. The instant case projects an altogether different fact
situation which was not even comprehended by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the Case titled as “State of Karnatka
Vs. Uma Devi”, 2006(4), SCC1. We are persuaded to take
the view similar to the one taken by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case titled as “Jagoo Vs. Union of India”
reported as 2024 INSC 1034, wherein, under similar set of
circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the
rescue of persons engaged as sweepers on part time basis,
who continued to perform their duties for decades together.
It is also worthwhile to mention here that the job which the
appellant has been performing in the Bank for the last
several years is the job which is supposed to be performed
by a regularly appointed sweeper. It is not the case of the
Respondent Bank that the post of sweepers or similar
equivalent posts are not available in the Bank. The decision
to make engagement on a temporary basis to maintain
cleanliness and hygiene in the branches was taken by the
Incharges of the branches only with a view to save the
expenditure and get the same job done for a meager
MIR ARIF MANZOOR LPA No. 132/2021 C/W LPA No. 133/2021
I attest to the accuracy and
Page No. 9
authenticity of this document24.07.25
amount. This is, on the face of it, an exploitation of labour,which cannot be permitted.
14. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set
aside the judgment qua the appellant, and direct the
respondents to consider the case of the appellant for
regularization against the post of sweeper or any other
equivalent post in the Bank.
15. Let the consideration be accorded and appropriate
order passed in the light of the observations made in the
judgment within a period of three months from the date a
copy of the judgment is served upon the respondents. We
make it clear that the judgment which we have passed is
confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
and shall not be treated as a precedent for future cases.
16. Disposed of.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
Srinagar,
23.07.2025
"Mir Arif"
Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes/No.
Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes/No.
MIR ARIF MANZOOR LPA No. 132/2021 C/W LPA No. 133/2021
I attest to the accuracy and
Page No. 10
authenticity of this document
24.07.25
[ad_1]
Source link