The Supreme Court strongly criticized J&K officials for failing to comply with a High Court order on regularisation benefits for employees. Calling it a “glaring and textbook example of obstinacy,” the court condemned the officials for disregarding legal directives. The bench emphasized that state authorities are not above the law and must follow judicial orders. The ruling reinforces the importance of accountability in government actions.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court criticized officials in Jammu and Kashmir for failing to comply with a High Court order regarding the regularization of daily wage workers, describing the situation as a “glaring and textbook example of obstinacy.”
A bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh stated that instead of adhering to the 2007 High Court order, which called for the regularization of daily wagers who had worked for 14 to 19 years in the rural development department, the state authorities resorted to issuing “cryptic orders” to harass these workers.
Also Read: Era of Peace in J&K, Centre Tells SC
The bench remarked,
“We are constrained to observe that the present case is a glaring and textbook example of obstinacy exhibited by the state officials/authorities, who consider themselves to be above and beyond the reach of law, in their ruling on March 7.”
The court criticized the officials for their “inaction,” noting that it took them approximately 16 years to comply with a straightforward High Court order from May 3, 2007, calling it “shocking and prima facie contemptuous.”
Consequently, the bench upheld the Rs 25,000 cost imposed by a High Court division bench, stating that the officials should be “strictly” held accountable.
The bench expressed concern not only about the decades-long delay but also about the ongoing harassment faced by the daily wage workers due to the passing of ambiguous orders, which disregarded the essence of the May 3, 2007 order from a single judge.
The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s imposition of a “symbolic cost.”
On December 4, 2024, the High Court denied relief to the union territory regarding an October 16, 2024, order from a single judge in a contempt petition filed by daily wage workers in 2010, citing non-compliance with the 2007 order.
Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Jammu and Kashmir Assembly Elections by 2024
The administration’s counsel noted that the single judge had ordered the arrest of the relevant officials, to which Justice Surya Kant responded,
“That’s good. The single judge has rightly done so.”
The bench deemed the case “fit for imposing exemplary costs on the delinquent officers” and recommended strong disciplinary measures against them.
However, they opted not to take action at this stage, considering that contempt proceedings are still pending before the single judge. They urged the single judge to address the contempt proceedings weekly to uphold the majesty and sanctity of the law.
The High Court found that the 2007 order had never been challenged no review was filed, nor were objections raised regarding violations of the Supreme Court’s judgment before a division bench.
It stated,
“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 received the benefits of SRO 64 and were similarly situated.”
SRO 64 of 1994, issued by the Jammu and Kashmir government, pertains to the criteria for the regularization of daily wagers employed by the state. The High Court, while imposing Rs 25,000 in costs on the union territory administration, allowed for the recovery of this amount from the salary of the officer who advised the current plea against contempt action.
A group of daily wagers from the rural development department approached the High Court in 2006, seeking regularization of their jobs based on their 14 to 19 years of service and their grievances regarding the lack of regularization under SRO 64 of 1994, despite multiple requests.
They sought to have their services regularized from the dates they were eligible and requested payment of wages accordingly.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
