Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Ghulam Ahmad Dar vs State And Others on 8 August, 2017
Author: Ramalingam Sudhakar
Bench: Ramalingam Sudhakar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR.
SWP no. 534/2017
Date of Order: 08.08.2017
Ghulam Ahmad Dar
Vs.
State and others
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar, Judge.
Appearing Counsel:
For the petitioner(s)/applicant : Mr. S. N. Ratanpuri, Adv.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Moksha Kazmi, AAG
i. Whether to be approved for reporting in Yes/No NET.
ii. Whether to be approved for reporting in Yes/No Digest/Journal.
1. Prayer in the writ petition is as follows:
a) Mandamus thereby commanding the respondents to release the wages in favour of the petitioner for the period he has actually worked in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act.
b) Mandamus commanding the respondents to engage the petitioner on need basis from time to time as and when the work is available.
c) Mandamus commanding the respondents to forward the case of the petitioner to the government for his appointment against any class IV post in view of the services rendered by him.
2. The petitioner claims to be a fisherman by profession. Post-2014 floods, there occurred another flood like situation in March 2015. On the recommendations of the authorities the petitioner was engaged as Need Based Casual Labourer to ferry people across river Jhelum. The petitioner states that he has been discharging his services ever since but has not been properly paid nor his service regularized.
3. By this writ petition, he seeks release of wages in his favour for the period he has actually worked in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act. The respondents' counsel states that whatever minimum wages have to be paid for such job due for the period for which the petitioner has actually worked will be paid to him if not already paid. The said statement is recorded.
4. As far as the second relief prayed for in the writ petition is concerned, there is no serious objection from the learned counsel for the respondents. She states that the respondent department is willing to engage his service as and when required.
5. As far as the third prayer is concerned, as a matter of rule the petitioner cannot claim appointment against any particular post. No direction can be passed for his appointment against any particular post. The petitioner can ventilate his grievance by way of representation.
6. Writ petition disposed of as above.
Srinagar (Ramalingam Sudhakar) 08.08.2017 Judge N Ahmad