Place proposal before Governing Body for decision: HC

Regularization of contractual employees of JKCCC

Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Feb 7: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has issued directions for placing the proposal regarding regularization of services of contractual employees of the J&K Cable Car Corporation Ltd before the Governing Body for final decision on the touch stone of the same policy which had been made applicable in the past.
The case set up by the petitioners before the bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal was that after having undergone the proper selection process, they were appointed as Supervisor (E-governance), Technician (E-governance) and Junior Ski Patroller (Grade II) on the recommendations of the selection committee constituted vide SKICC Order No. 74/2012 dated 08th December, 2012, in terms of the Order No. 78 of 2012 dated 17th December, 2012 and Order No. 17 of 2013 dated 16th February, 2013 respectively, initially for a period of two years and accordingly, the period was extended subject to the performance of the petitioners and their requirement in the Corporation.
The grievance projected by the petitioners is that similarly contractual appointees in the Corporation appointed vide Order No. 102 of 2013 dated 18th December, 2013, were regularized in terms of the decision of the Board of Directors taken in the meeting held on 11th of July, 20014 against Agenda Item No. 31.23. The present petitioners had also approached the Corporation for seeking the similar benefits, which though processed by the Managing Director has not been extended to the petitioners as on date.
After hearing counsel for the petitioners, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal put a specific query to the counsel for the respondents that how and under what circumstances the similarly situated contractual employees were regularized in the past just after two years. However, he could not reply effectively and on the other hand he submitted that the regularization of the employees was a past act and closed event.
However, he failed to distinguish that how they constitute a different clause viz-a-viz the petitioners and could not justify the inaction viz-a-viz the petitioners on the same analogy as has been done in the case of similarly situated employees in the past.
“The petitioners are not back door entrants to the service and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination can be treated unfairly by the respondents”, Justice Nargal said, adding “having regard to the services rendered by the petitioners satisfactorily and without any complaint whatsoever, they were given extension in their services from time to time and on completion of the two years contract, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have processed the case of the petitioners for regularization on the same analogy as has been done in the case of similarly situated employees in the past”.
“The present writ petition has been filed before this court way back in the year 2017 and on the very first day of hearing, this court vide order dated 11th December, 2017, had directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization at par with similarly situated persons under rules governing the field. However, till date the order has not been implemented in its letter and spirit and the petitioners continue to be discriminated”, Justice Nargal said.
Accordingly, High Court directed the respondents to prepare and submit the agenda positively within a period of one week for regularization of the petitioners being the contractual employees on the touch stone of the same policy which has been made applicable in the past and place the same afresh before the Administrative Department for its final approval.
“Thereafter subject to the approval of the Administrative Department, the proposal for regularization of the contractual services of the petitioners be placed before the Governing Body within two weeks thereafter for final decision and the decision which is likely to be taken by the Governing Body headed by Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory be placed before this court immediately thereafter”, Justice Nargal said.