AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ali Mohammad Magrey, J
This intra Court appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 30th of September, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2843/2019, whereby the Petitioner of the Petitioner/ Appellant herein stands dismissed.
The case of the Petitioner/ Appellant before the Writ Court was that he was engaged by the Respondent-JKPCC to work as a Casual Labour with their then Standing Counsel. It was claimed that the Petitioner, after his engagement as such, worked with the said Lawyer and was assigned the job of liaisoning between the Standing Counsel and the Officers of the JKPCC.
The grievance of the Petitioner in the Writ Petition, accordingly, was that he, despite working for quite some time, was not paid the salary with respect thereto as promised to him at the time of his engagement. The Respondents resisted the claim of the Petitioner/ Appellant by adopting a specific and categoric stand that the Petitioner/ Appellant was neither engaged as a Casual Labour nor was he ever on the rolls of the JKPCC.
The learned Single Judge, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, vide the impugned Judgment, dismissed the Petition of the Petitioner/ Appellant with the observation that it could not find any material available on record substantiating the engagement of the Petitioner by the Respondent-JKPCC.
We have heard Mr S. R. Hussain, the learned Counsel for the appellant/ Petitioner; as well as Mr M. A. Chashoo, the learned Additional Advocate General representing the Respondents.
The sole and main ground on the basis of which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Petition of the Petitioner/ Appellant is non-availability of any material on record vis-à-vis the engagement of the Petitioner by the Respondent-JKPCC. The learned Writ Court, after scanning the material on record qua the claim of the Petitioner, has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition for the relief claimed. Before us, also, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ Appellant, on being repeatedly asked, could not provide any proof with reference to the engagement of the Petitioner/ Appellant by the JKPCC. That being the position, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner/ Appellant as would warrant its interference from this Court. Accordingly, this appeal fails and shall, as such, stand dismissed, along with the connected CM.