Srinagar, Oct 28: The High Court has said that repeated filing of successive petitions virtually for the same cause of action was more or less the abuse of the process of law.
Rejecting an appeal filed by a daily-waged person, seeking regularization of his services in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 Agriculture/Sericulture Development Department, a division bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul said that in the matters of regularization of services based upon factual aspects, “it is not always possible for the court to verify the factual aspects on the basis of the record produced or the documents on record.”
“Moreover, when repeatedly a consideration has been accorded in the matter of regularization by the authorities and every time the claim has been rejected on the factual aspects, the court cannot permit the person to keep invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court pleading for justice, the court said
In such circumstances, the court said, it is always better that the recourse to the appropriate forum be allowed to be taken so that the parties may lead evidence on the disputed aspects of the facts and get the matter adjudicated upon.
“The repeated filing of successive writ petitions virtually for the same cause of action in seeking regularization after rejection of their claim by the authorities, time and again, is more or less the abuse of the process of law and in these circumstances, the writ court may be justified in refusing to exercise discretionary powers.”
The single bench of the court in dismissing the petition filed by the daily-wager had held that it cannot enter into any fact-finding mission so as to ascertain the disputed questions regarding continuous discharge of duties by the daily-wager for a continuous period of seven years which is one of the conditions for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.
As per the appellant, he was appointed as a daily-wager in the Agriculture/Sericulture Development Department in 1986. On alleged completion of seven years of “continuous” service, he claimed regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.
The government had first rejected his claim vide order on 24 August 1998. Then he challenged the order and the court on 7 April 2008 asked government to reconsider his case. Again his case was not considered and this time he filed a contempt plea. The officials produced the consideration order dated 25th October 2008, rejecting his claim. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings were closed on 12th March 2009 giving liberty to him to challenge the consideration order. He again filed another plea, challenging 25th October 2008 order. This petition was disposed on 4th April 2016 by the court with the direction to officials to extend the benefit of the judgment and order dated 17th March 2016 passed in another case provided he is similarly circumstanced with the petitioner in that plea. Again no consideration was accorded and he filed petition which was disposed of by the court on 10th August 2018 with the direction to the officials to consider his case afresh after examining the entire records as to whether he has completed seven years of continuous service or not. Subsequently on 12th February 2018 the government again refused to regularize his services on the ground that he is not eligible for regularization under the SRO 64. This order was challenged by him again and this time the court rejected it which he had challenged before the division of high court and his appeal was dismissed today.
Comments are closed.