Ghulam Rasool Kumar & Ors. v. State of JK & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid contempt petition reveal that petitioners herein preferred SWP No. 2292/2015 supra praying therein the following reliefs: - By writ of Prohibition, the respondents be prohibited from reducing the scale of wages admissible under the…
Judgment
Through: Mr. B. A. Misri, Advocate. Vs. State of JK and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
O R D E R 08.05.2024 CPSW No. 394/2017 & CCP(S) No. 02/2023
In these contempt petitions petitioners have alleged non-compliance of order dated 07.05.2016 passed in SWP No. 2292/2015 and order dated 06.11.2015 passed in SWP no. 2292/2015.
The facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid contempt petition reveal that petitioners herein preferred SWP No. 2292/2015 supra praying therein the following reliefs: - By writ of Prohibition, the respondents be prohibited from reducing the scale of wages admissible under the Minimum Wages Act. Any deduction made after April 2015 may be declared illegal and accordingly the respondents be directed to release the unpaid wages and arrears without any deduction. By a writ of Mandamus, the respondents be directed to regularize the services of petitioners on the principle of law laid down in case 2011(1) SLJ 58, titled Abdul Qadeer Kumar Vs. state and Ors. Further be directed not to undertake any fresh selection for filing the existing vacancy till the conclusion of claim for regularization pertaining to the petitioners.
In the applications accompanying the writ petition being MP No. 01/2015 the Court passed the following order on 06.11.2015: - 1 “Objections. In the meanwhile, respondents to release the unpaid minimum wages in favour of the petitioners from April 2015 in accordance with rules.”
During the pendency of the petition supra, the petitioners filed contempt petition no. 104/2016 which came to be considered by this Court along with the petition SWP No. 2292/2015 supra and court passed the following order on 07.05.2016: -
Heard. Rule Nisi. Notice to show cause as to why rule is not made absolute. At this stage Mr. M. I. Dar, learned AAG Advocate appeared and submitted that he has instructions to accept notice on behalf of the respondents. His statement is taken on record.
Though reply affidavit stands filed but learned counsel for respondents made submission that respondents may be given liberty to file additional affidavit. Prayer allowed. Additional affidavit within three weeks. List in the week commencing from 6th of June 2016, higher up. In the meanwhile, respondents to ensure payment of wages to the petitioners @ Rs.4500/- each which was being paid to them in terms of Government Order No. 34 CMOK of 2014 dated 29.10.2014, passed by Chief Medical Officer, Kupwara. List along with connected MPs. Meanwhile compliance report.”
Record reveals that the respondents have filed latest compliance report to the contempt petitions on 07.02.2024 wherein it is being stated that petitioners stand paid arrears of the minimum wages up till
31.10.2023 at the rate of Rs 4500/- and to substantiate the said stand, the respondents have annexed copies of certificates dated 12.12.2023 reflecting the details of 23 petitioners issued by their respective Block Medical officers, their designation and the amount of wages w.e.f. 11/2014 up to 10/2023.
In view of aforesaid stand taken by the respondents the petitioners have been paid wages by the respondents/contemnors at the rate Rs.4500/- in compliance to the orders passed by this court on
07.05.2016 supra.
It is however, contended by the counsel for the respondents that before 31.10.2023 the petitioners stands disengaged and the job 2 assigned to the petitioners stands outsourced by the respondents which outsourcing has been challenged by the petitioners before this Court in WP(C) No. 3477/2023 and WP(C) 47/2024. Counsel for the respondents thus, would submit that in view of the disengagement of the petitioners the respondents are not bound to pay any further wages to the petitioners.
Having regard the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondents, as has been noticed in the preceding paras have duly complied with the orders/s whereunder the contempt petitions have arisen owing to which the contempt notices issued in the contempt petitions are recalled and contempt proceedings closed.
List the main petitions on 31.05.2024. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 08.05.2024 Ishaq 3
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.