The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticized the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir for failing to comply with a High Court order for an astonishing 16 years. The case involves daily wage workers who were supposed to be regularized as per Government Order SRO 64 of 1994.
Background of the Case
In 2007, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court directed the government to consider the case of certain daily wage workers for regularization, just like others who had already benefited from SRO 64 in 2006. However, despite this clear directive, the government failed to act, forcing the workers to file a contempt petition in 2010.
The matter remained in legal limbo for more than a decade. In 2014, the High Court rejected the government’s objections, reaffirming the rights of the daily wagers. The government then challenged this order through a Letter Patent Appeal (LPA), which was also dismissed. This led to the present petition before the Supreme Court.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Clears Employers in Electrocution Case, Citing Lack of Intent
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh made scathing remarks about the J&K administration’s inaction. The court noted:
“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 Supreme Court expressed deep concern not only over the 16-year delay but also over the repeated harassment of daily wage workers through unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. The court further remarked:
“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 of the learned Single Judge.”
Read Also:- Court Lacks Expertise to Verify Signatures; Must Seek Handwriting Expert's Opinion: Allahabad HC
The Supreme Court acknowledged the Division Bench’s decision, which imposed a symbolic cost of ₹25,000 on the J&K administration. The court stated that the penalty could be recovered from the officer responsible for advising the appeal.
While the Supreme Court considered imposing exemplary costs and recommending disciplinary actions against delinquent officers, it refrained from doing so, as contempt proceedings were still pending before the Single Judge of the J&K High Court. However, the Supreme Court urged the High Court to expedite the contempt hearings:
“We request the learned Single Judge to take up the contempt proceedings on a weekly basis and ensure that the majesty and sanctity of law is well maintained.”
Case Title: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. vs Abdul Rehman Khanday & Ors., 2025
Legal Representatives:
- For Petitioners: Mr. Rushab Aggarwal, Adv.; Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
- For Respondents: Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR; Ms. Chetna Alagh, Adv.
