HC seeks KU Registrar’s presence through warrant of arrest for disrespecting court order
Srinagar: The J&K High Court has issued a warrant of arrest against the Registrar University of Kashmir for disrespecting its order to regularize 84 casual and contractual employees passed in August 2022.
In a case titled Sabiya Rashid versus Neelofar Khan (Vice Chancellor, University of Kashmir) and others, Justice Sanjeev Kumar ordered “this court is left with no option but to secure the presence of respondent number two Registrar (Dr Nisar Ahmad Mir) through bailable warrant to the tune of Rs 10,000 to be executed through SHO Police Station Hazratbal.”
The judge recapitulated its earlier order of April 28, 2023, which gave two weeks further time to the respondent authorities at the university to file compliance report in terms of order of August 26, 2022.
The order had made it clear “in case the needful was not done by the respondent No. 2 – Registrar, University of Kashmir, Hazratbal, Srinagar, he shall appear in person before this court on the next date of hearing.”
As a matter of fact, there was a similar order passed by this court on March, 31, 2023 also. “The order dated 28th April, 2023, has been conveyed to the respondents by this court. Despite the respondents having been served with the order, nobody has appeared on behalf of them,” observed the court.
In these circumstances, the bench presided over by Justice Kumar said “this court is left with no option but to secure the presence of respondent number two Registrar (Dr Nisar Ahmad Mir) through bailable warrant ….”
The High Court had in 2022 directed the University of Kashmir to go ahead with the process of regularization of 84 casual and contractual employees and issue appropriate orders of regularization in the matter.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar while giving his verdict at that time recorded that in terms of decision of the University Council taken in its meeting held on 05.06.2020, 84 supernumerary positions to be designated as Helpers in the pay band of Rs 4440-7440 shall be deemed to have been created w.e.f. 01.11.2018.
As such the court directed the university to go ahead with the process of regularization of 84 casual and contractual ngages, which include the petitioners, against such posts and positions of Helpers and issue appropriate orders of regularization.
Court said the regularization order be issued in favour of those who are found to have completed a mandatory period of seven years of uninterrupted service and are otherwise found eligible in terms of University Notification dated 03.09.2014.
Court also directed that the petitioners shall be entitled to their regularization with retrospective effect from the date they have attained the eligibility for such regularization i.e. 01.11.2018 and shall also be entitled to arrears of their salary.
“The respondents shall do well to complete the entire exercise, culminating into issuance of regularization orders in favour of eligible casual/contractual ngages which may include the petitioners within a period of two months from the date a copy of this judgment is served upon them,” the court directed.
It recorded that the University Council could not have deviated from its earlier position while dealing with the cases of 84 casual and contractual ngages who have completed their mandatory period of seven years of uninterrupted service and became eligible for regularization on 31.10.2018.
Court added that the cases of these 84 casual/contractual ngages which include the petitioners were entirely similar and identical to the cases of those who were regularized in the year 2015, 2017 and 2018 respectively.
“The petitioners have, thus, been subjected to hostile discrimination. The action of respondents is, thus, absolutely discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,” reads the judgment.
The decision of the University Council to refer the matter to the Chancellor through Financial Adviser after having accepted the proposal in principle, court said, is totally arbitrary and dehors of the Statues and Regulations framed thereunder.
“There was no point in referring the matter to the Chancellor through Financial Adviser, when both the authorities were present in the University Council. To remind, it may be pointed out that the Chancellor is the head of the University Council and is assisted, inter-alia, by the Financial Adviser, who is one of the members of the University Council,” read the judgment
