HC directs MD JKPCC to regularize the petitioner

she was engaged as Casual Labour in the respondent Corporation for 89 days on need basis with effect from 23rd of July, 2002. However, in appreciation of the excellent work rendered by the petitioner, the petitioner was retained as such in the Corporation for a long number of years. The petitioner claims that since she, besides being well qualified, also has three years Diploma in Architectural Engineering to her credit and has given her blood and youth to the Corporation, coupled with the fact of she having reached 42 years of age and, therefore, represented before the respondent Corporation for seeking regularization of her services which representation, however, did not yield any fruits for the petitioner.

          Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey after hearing both the sides observed that it is well settled proposition of law that the action of the respondent authorities, being the official functionaries, has to be transparent. They cannot discriminate between similarly circumstanced persons. Ours is a welfare Society which aims at the goal where everyone is/has to be, as far as possible, looked after. The case of the petitioner had to be considered on the same parameters and analogy as was evolved in the cases of the similarly situated persons, whose services stand regularized in the respondent Corporation. The respondents have treated the case of the petitioner as a ‘sui generis’ case and have invidiously discriminated her.

          Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey further observed that justice is not only law and its administration, but is, in most cases, above law and is done to save the individual from whatever he/ she seeks protection. Our country, in particular, aims at the goal of achieving the welfare State where everyone is/ has to be, as far as possible, looked after. There can be no discrimination between two individuals who are equally placed and looking at the petition of the petitioner from another perspective, the respondent Corporation, admittedly, has been extracting the services of the petitioner as Architect from the last so many years. The petitioner, on the basis of said services being discharged by her, claimed her regularization as such in tune with the decision of the Corporation adopted in the case of other Trainee Engineers, who were allowed to undergo training for gaining experience, and, subsequently, the said training had become a ground for them to get the benefit of regularization. The petitioner has placed on record order bearing No. Estt/117 of 2011 dated 12th of February, 2011 accompanied by list of Trainee Engineers, in terms whereof they have been placed in the regular grade on the analogy of one Saleem Jan. The aforesaid order has been issued by the Managing Director, JKPCC Limited on the decision taken by the Board of Directors of JKPCC Limited in its 85th meeting held on 22nd of November, 2010 vide item No. 85.01(B). The order reveals that these Trainee Engineers were paid on consolidated basis and the Annexure enclosed with the said order gives the details of the Trainee Engineers who were paid on consolidated basis in various wings of the Corporation, i.e., Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering and Electrical Engineering and other branches, including one Shaista Tabasum, who was engaged as Casual Architect and was similarly situated with the petitioner. The respondents, even though having been granted ample opportunity to deny these specific contentions made by the petitioner in her petition, could not place anything substantial on record to rebut the said contentions made by the petitioner.

          With these observations High court allowed the petition and quashed  the impugned order bearing No. 133 of 2017 dated 14th of November, 2017, issued by respondent-Managing Director and  directed respodent to regularize the services of the petitioner in the Corporation on the same parameters as have been laid down in the cases of other similarly situated Casual Labours/ Trainee Engineers/ Architect whose services stand regularized in the Corporation. The respondent Corporation shall do the needful, as directed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months’ time from today. JNF