Jammu and Kashmir High Court
SWP/991/2014 of NEERAJ KUMAR AND ORS. Vs STATE TH.P.D.D.AND ORS. on 29 December 2016
JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU SWP No.991/2014 MP No.1/2016 Date of decision:-29/12/2016 Neeraj Kumar and ors Vs. State Of J&K and ors. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar, Judge Appearing counsel: For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Rozina Afzal, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : 0 i)
Conclusion
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
SWP No.991/2014 MP No.1/2016
Date of decision:-29/12/2016
Neeraj Kumar and ors Vs. State Of J&K and ors.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar, Judge Appearing counsel:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Rozina Afzal, Advocate. For the respondent(s) :
0
i) Whether approved for reporting in NET.
Yes. No.
ii) Whether approved for reporting in Digest/Journal. Digest/Journal.
1. The petitioners have filed the writ petition for the following relief:- “1) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari whereby quashing the Order No. CE/CI&D/Legal/4650-52 dated 16.1.2014 passed by respondent No. 3, by virtue of which, the claims of the petitioners have been rejected being patently illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and issued in mechanical manner. II) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus whereby commanding upon the respondents to re-engage the petitioners and also regularize their services on the same analogy as has been adopted in the case of similarly situated employees of the Corporation, alongwith all consequential benefits. III) For issuance of further writ of mandamus whereby directing the respondents to produce the record of re-engagement of DRWs/Casual Labourers working in Civil Construction Division-II, Parnai Hydel Project Draba, Surankote, District Poonch and in Ladakh Region, Kargil under Chief project Engineer, PDC, Kargil, who were also disengaged along with the petitioners in the year 2009-10, for perusal of this Hon’ble Court. IV) For issuance of any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may please also be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.”
Page 1 of 2
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were disengaged and thereafter they again came to be re-engaged. The petitioners seek regularization and consequential relief. 3.In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services and also release salary of petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 in terms of Annexure-D, page 20 of the writ petition. Consideration order be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
4. Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Jammu,
29.12.2016Tilak, Secy.
(Ramalingam Sudhakar)
Judge
This aocument was created with Win2PDF available at|http://www.win2pdf.com.The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.This page will not be added after purchasing Win2PDF,
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…