Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Roobia Ara vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 29 July, 2025
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
S. No. 97
Regular Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 308/2024
Reserved on 02.05.2025
Pronounced on: 29.07.2025
Roobia Ara
...Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Shabir Ahmad Budoo, Advocate
Vs.
UT of J&K and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner through the medium of instant petition is seeking a direction
upon respondents to release her unpaid wages w.e.f. July 2019 to date.
She also seeks a direction upon respondents to regularize her services.
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that she has been initially engaged as
Computer Operator for 89 days on need basis in the year 2013 in the
office of respondent No.5, Executive Engineer, Civil Construction
Division-II, Ganderbal (NGHEP), Kashmir and thereafter, extension
orders were issued from time to time. Subsequently, her services were
disbanded by respondent No.7 w.e.f. November 2014 in terms of order
dated 16.07.2014. Since the wages for the period petitioner worked
were not paid to her, she made a representation to respondent No.4 for
her re-engagement and also for release of her wages. The petitioner
claims to have been reengaged by respondent No.4 w.e.f. November
1
WP(C) No. 308/2024
2016 and since then she is working in the office of respondent Nos.5
and 6. Thereafter, petitioner has moved another representation for
release of her wages as well as for continuing her services without any
break, but her wages have not been released.
3. It is averred in the petition that an identical petition bearing WP(C) No.
2133/2022 titled as Mohit Dogra and Os. V. UT of J&K and Ors. has
been filed by casual labourers in Jammu Wing of this Court. The Court
vide order dated 10.04.2023 directed respondents 1&2 to consider the
claim of petitioners for release of emoluments to which they would be
found entitled to within a period of two weeks and that consequently
respondent No.2 released the wages of said petitioners.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the wages of
petitioners in WP(C) No. 2133/2022 have been released by respondents
and prays for release of petitioner’s wages on the same analogy as has
been adopted in the case of petitioners in WP(C) No. 2133/2022.
5. Respondents in their objections have stated that services of petitioner
were dispensed with when she was no longer required. It is also stated
in the objections that respondent No.4 had no competence or
jurisdiction to direct reengagement of petitioner and the same has been
done purely on pick and choose basis on the recommendations of local
MLA, as such, the same cannot be countenanced under law in any
manner and being void ab initio cannot confer any right upon the
petitioner. The services of petitioner have been utilized on need basis
that too after the ban imposed by the Government vide Finance
Department Circular dated 24.05.2019. The Division Bench of this
Court vide judgement dated 29.01.2021 passed in LPA No. 269/2019
2
WP(C) No. 308/2024
titled State of Jammu and Kashmir and Os. vs. Abdul Ahad Lone and
Ors., has held that after issuance of the Government order, the
departments had no authority to extend their engagement or permit
them to continue on need basis as the authority to make engagements
stood withdrawn by the Government.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
7. Petitioner relies upon a letter no.JKSPDC/ADM/CJ/767 dated 17th April
2013 because by virtue thereof she has been engaged in respondent-
Corporation. Contents of letter read as under:
“I am directed to refer to your letters No.CE/NgHEP/Gbl/Adm/
2690-92 dated 19.03.2013 and No.CE/NGHEP/Gbl/Adm/2697-98
dated 22.03.2013 regarding the above subject and to state that till
such time the process for recruitment for various posts which have
been advertised is completed, you are requested to engage Miss
Roobia Aara D/o Shri Ali Mohammad Parray R/o Pandach,
Ganderbal who has passed three year Diploma in Electrical
Engineering through the State Board of Technical Education, in the
New Ganderbal HEP on casual/need basis for 89 days in the first
instance. A copy of her application duly endorsed by the Hon’ble
Chairman, JKSPDC, along with photostat copies of the
qualification certificates is also enclosed.”
8. It is evident from communication dated 17 th April 2013 (Annexure III
to writ petition) that engagement of petitioner had been made on casual/
need basis and till the process for recruitment to various posts was
completed. Extensions to casual/need based engagement of petitioner
were made, but by virtue of letter dated 16 th July 2014 (Annexure VII to
writ petition) it was conveyed to Chief Engineer, NGHEP, Ganderbal,
that a casual labour was engaged purely on need basis and had to be on
the master roll for payment of wages and that no engagement order was
required to be issued in favour of casual worker. Chief Engineer,
NGHEP, Ganderbal, was advised that petitioner, who had been engaged
3
WP(C) No. 308/2024
on need basis, be paid remuneration/wages against progress of work on
the basis of mater roll for the days she actually worked ensuring that
services of incumbent were dispensed with when no longer required.
Thus, extensions to engagement of petitioner had been given as and
when required.
9. In terms of Government Order no.43-F of 2015 dated 17th March 2015,
the authority to engage casual/seasonal labourer to various departments
as delegated vide Government Order nos. 239-F of 2005 dated 29th
January 2005, 138-F of 2013 dated 23rd May 2013, and 105-PD of 2010
dated 25th October 2010, has been withdrawn. In terms of Government
Order no.384-GAD of 2015 dated 17 th March 2015, all reemployment
orders issued by various Government Departments have been revoked;
all engagements/arrangements made by different departments/public
sector undertakings/boards/autonomous bodies under any scheme
against sanctioned posts without selection procedure even on
contractual basis, shall cease to exist and any other engagement/
arrangement made by departments/public sector undertakings/boards/
autonomous bodies, at their own level, shall also be revoked and shall
cease to exist.
10. The instant like cases have already been set at rest by the Division
Bench of this Court in a bunch of cases/appeals, with lead case, LPA
no.269/2019 titled as State of J&K and others v. Abdul Ahad Lone and
connected matters, vide judgement dated 29 th January 2021. Paragraphs
12 to 17 are reproduced as under:
“12. From a perusal of Government Order No.43-F of 2015, it
clearly transpires that the authority to engage casual/seasonal
labourers delegated by the Government to various departments4
WP(C) No. 308/2024
including the department of agriculture has been withdrawn with
immediate effect and as a natural consequence of withdrawal of
the authority, none of the authorized departments including the
department of agriculture was left with any authority to engage
the casual/seasonal labourers in their departments.
13. Whether Government Order No.43-F of 2015 is prospective
or retrospective is not likely to change the position in any
manner. Admittedly, the engagement of the writ petitioners, as
need base labourers to perform the duties in different Sheep
Breeding Farms, was temporary in nature, initial engagement
order being only for a period of 89 days, though the engagement
of the writ petitioners has been extended from time to time by
giving them a break of one day after every spell of 89 days. That
being the position, on or after the issuance of Government Order
No.43-F of 2015, the appellant- department had no authority to
extend their engagements or permit them to continue on need
basis for the reason that the authority under which the writ
petitioners were being engaged from time to time stood
withdrawn by the Government.
14. Undoubtedly, as rightly held by the Writ Court, Government
Order No.43-F of 2015 is prospective in operation and would
have the effect of taking away the authority of the appellants to
extend the engagement of the writ petitioners or to continue their
engagements further. The Writ Court has not appreciated the
Government Order from this perspective and, has thus,
erroneously held that the services of the writ petitioners were not
liable to be disengaged or discontinued by application of Govt.
Order No.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015. Govt. Order No.384-
GAD of 2015 dated 17.03.2015 is clearly not attracted in the case
on hand, for, the same pertains to the engagements/arrangements
made by different Government Departments, PSUs and other
autonomous bodies under schemes against the sanctioned posts
and without any selection process. In the instant case, the
engagement of the writ petitioners was neither under any scheme
nor against any sanctioned post(s) and, therefore, applicability of
Govt. Order No.384-GAD of 2015 is clearly ruled out. To the
similar effect is the clarification issued by the GAD with regard
to the import of Govt. Order No.384-GAD of 2015.
15. That apart, the services of the writ petitioners, as is apparent
from the record, stood disengaged on the date the writ petitions
were entertained and interim directions were passed by the Writ
Court. The mere fact that the engagement of the writ petitioners
was on need basis and without following any due process of
selection would justify their disengagement by the appellants.
The authority delegated to the appellants by the Government in
terms of Govt. Order No.239-F of 2005 dated 29.01.2005 stood
withdrawn and, therefore, the appellants were devoid of any
authority or competence to extend or continue the engagement of
the writ petitioners further. That being the position, the appellants
were well within their powers to disengage the writ petitioners.
The direction of the Writ Court to allow the writ petitioners to
continue on ‘need basis’ arrangement was not justified in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
16. We are, therefore, of the view that having regard to the nature
of engagements of the writ petitioners, no right was vested in5
WP(C) No. 308/2024
them to continue in the department indefinitely, more so, when
the authority under which the writ petitioners were being
engaged from time to time stood withdrawn by the Government
in terms of Govt. Order No.43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015.
17. Mr. M.A.Wani, learned counsel appearing for some of the
writ petitioners has raised the issue of applicability of SRO 520
of 2017 and urges that the writ petitioners having been engaged
before 17.03.2015 were entitled to the benefit of regular
engagement under the said SRO. This issue has been raised for
the first time during the hearing of these appeals. We could not
find any whisper about SRO 520 of 2017 in the pleadings that
were before the Writ Court. Applicability of SRO 520 of 2017
may involve determination of other allied questions of fact and
law, which this Court hearing appeal may not be able to
determine in the absence of pleadings. We, therefore, keep this
issue open for the writ petitioners to agitate before appropriate
forum by way of appropriate proceedings. Nothing said in this
judgment shall prejudice their right to claim the benefit of SRO
520 of 2017, if that is attracted in their case.”
11. It has been in clear cut terms observed by the Division Bench that the
mere fact that the engagement of the writ petitioners was on need
basis and without following any due process of selection would justify
their disengagement. The authority delegated to the department stood
withdrawn in terms of Government Order no.239-F of 2005 dated
29.01.2005 and, therefore, the department was devoid of any authority
or competence to extend or continue engagement of the writ
petitioners further. That being the position, the department was well
within its powers to disengage writ petitioners. It has been
emphasized by the Division Bench that the direction of the Writ Court
to allow writ petitioners to continue on ‘need basis’ arrangement was
not justified.
12. The Division Bench has held that having regard to the nature of
engagements of writ petitioners, no right was vested in them to
continue in the department indefinitely, more so, when the authority
under which writ petitioners were engaged from time to time stood
6
WP(C) No. 308/2024
withdrawn by virtue of Government Order no.43-F of 2015 dated
17.03.2015.
13. All that has been said, observed and held by the Division Bench in
State of J&K v. Abdul Ahad Lone (supra) squarely applies to the case
in hand and, therefore, writ petition is dismissed. Insofar as unpaid
wages are concerned, respondents shall pay and release whatever is
due to petitioner.
14. Needless to say that petitioner is to free to avail appropriate remedy as
may be available to her by invoking the provisions of SRO 520 of
2017 provided her case falls and comes within the purview of the said
SRO.
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
29.07.2025
Manzoor
Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No
7
WP(C) No. 308/2024