New Delhi: The Supreme Court has censured Jammu and Kashmir officials for not complying with a high court over the regularisation of daily-wagers and called it as a “glaring and textbook example of obstination”.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said instead of complying with the 2007 order of the high court for regularisation of daily-wagers, who worked between 14-19 years in the Rural Development Department, the state authorities kept on passing “cryptic orders” to harass them.
“We are constrained to observe that the present case is a glaring and textbook example of obstination exhibited by the state officials/authorities, who consider themselves to be above and beyond the reach of law,” the bench said in an order on March 7.
The court said the “inaction” of the officials, who took about 16 years to comply with a “simpliciter high court order” dated May 3, 2007, was “shocking and prima facie contemptuous”.
The bench, therefore, refused to interfere with the Rs 25,000 cost imposed by a high court division bench and observed the officials ought to be “strictly” dealt with.
“However, what concerns us is not the delay of decades alone, but also the incontrovertible fact that the poor respondents, being daily wage workers, have been repeatedly harassed by the petitioners by passing cryptic orders, thereby overlooking the true import and spirit of the order dated May 3, 2007 passed by a single judge.
The top court felt the high court imposing a “symbolic cost” did not warrant any interference.
The high court on December 4, 2024, denied the relief to the union territory against the October 16, 2024 order of the single judge in a contempt plea filed by daily wagers in 2010 saying authorities hadn’t complied with the 2007 order.
The counsel for the administration said the single judge ordered the arrest of the officials concerned.
“That’s good. The single judge has rightly done so,” Justice Surya Kant said.
The bench observed the case was “fit for imposing exemplary costs on the delinquent officers” aside from recommending strong disciplinary action against them.
“However, we presently refrain ourselves from doing so, keeping in view the fact that the contempt proceedings are still pending before the single judge. We, consequently, request the single judge to take up the contempt proceedings on a weekly basis and ensure that majesty and sanctity of law is well maintained,” it added.
The high court found the 2007 order was never challenged — neither a review was filed, nor was it ever objected to on the grounds of violating apex court’s judgment — before a division bench.
“The order passed by the single judge (2007 order) clearly required the appellants to deal with the case of the respondents (daily wagers) in parity with such others who had already got the benefit of SRO 64 and were similarly placed as the respondents herein,” the high court said.
SRO 64 of 1994 issued by the Jammu and Kashmir government related to the regularisation criteria for daily-wagers working with the state government.
While imposing Rs 25,000 costs on the UT administration, the high court had given it the liberty to recover the cost from the salary of the officer upon whose advice the present plea (against contempt action) was filed.
A group of daily-wagers working in Rural Development Department in 2006 moved the high court seeking regularisation of their jobs on the ground that they have worked between 14 to 19 years and were aggrieved that their services were not regularised in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 despite repeated requests.
They sought their services to be regularised from the dates they were entitled for regularisation aside from payment of wages.
