Task 9 – 13/10/2021
Case 1 – Union of India vs. Omkar Nath Dhar (D) Through LRs.
INTRODUCTION
In the recent case, according to the Supreme Court, a government employee who is a Kashmiri
Migrant cannot stay in government housing for more than three years.
The Office Memorandum permitting retired Government employees who are Kashmiri Migrants
to maintain Government housing for an indefinite amount of time is unlawful, according to the
Court, because it is utterly arbitrary and discriminatory.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling permitting a retired Intelligence Bureau Officer to keep
his government housing was recently overturned by the court.
In this instance, the court was reviewing a slew of various motions attempting to overturn some
of the court's decisions. The court took notice of an office memorandum permitting retired
government employees who are Kashmiri migrants to stay in government housing.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court of India has struck down an order that allowed retired government
employees who are Kashmiri migrants to stay in government housing. The court said the order
did not meet the requirements of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which is aimed at
protecting human dignity and fundamental rights.
According to Paragraph 2(ii) of the Scheme, Kashmiri Pandits were to be housed in Delhi for the
first five years following their retirement and then relocated to the National Capital Region.
After which the court quoted "we believe it is appropriate if Kashmiri Migrants are provided
with government housing for a period of three years from the date of retirement, allowing them
to make alternative arrangements during that time." They have the option of moving to transit
accommodation or receiving a monetary payment in lieu of transit accommodation if an
alternative accommodation is not available at their request. Thus, a government employee who is
a Kashmiri Migrant would be ineligible to stay in government housing for more than three years,
whether in Delhi, the National Capital Region, or anyplace else in the country.
DIRECTIONS
The Supreme Court held by analyzing that the three-year period can also be viewed as a cooling-
off period for officers who were previously involved in active intelligence work, allowing them
to return to normal life. However, the excuse of previously working for an intelligence agency is
not a valid reason to remain in Government housing indefinitely, held that a Kashmiri Migrant
cannot stay in government housing for more than three years.
Case 2 - Tufail Ahmad Ansari v. State Of U P And 2 Others
INTRODUCTION
The Allahabad High Court this Thursday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for paying a
Class-IV post Rs. 450 per month in salaries from his initial employment in 2001, which is less
than the state's minimum wage.
Justice Pankaj Bhatia's bench stated that it was beyond comprehension how the state government
could continue to pay a Class-IV employee Rs 450 per month for the past 20 years.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Court was hearing a writ case filed by Tufail Ahmad Ansari, who claimed that he had been
employed by the MD Eye Hospital in Prayagraj on a Class-IV post since June 2001 and had been
paid Rs. 450/- per month since his initial engagement.
CONTENTIONS
The Counsel from Petitioner's side stated that despite the fact that the petitioner was eligible to
be considered for regularisation under the 2016 Rules, his case was not taken into consideration.
Further, according to the Standing Counsel, the wages of 'Kahar' were enhanced from Rs. 400/-
to Rs. 500/- per month in 1992 as a result of a Government Order, and this was being paid to the
petitioner.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
In this context, the Court made the following crucial observation,"In light of the Supreme Court's
ruling, the prescription of Rs. 450/- per month as wages by Government Order dated 01.07.1992
is plainly "another type of forced labour" and in violation of Article 23 of the Indian
Constitution."
The question of "other forms of Forced Labour" is addressed in Article 23 of the Indian
Constitution, and it was raised before the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union For
Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India and Others; (1982) 3 SCC 235, in which the
plight of workers engaged in Asian Games construction was highlighted.
In response to his request for regularisation, the Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in the
State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi case, finding that the petitioner was entitled to
regularisation of service.
DIRECTIONS
After deducting the monies given to the petitioner, the Court ordered the state government to pay
the minimum wages as specified by the state of Uttar Pradesh from the date of the petitioner's
initial employment, which was 15.6.2001. Further it was held that, "Persons employed before to
December 31, 2001, are eligible for regularisation consideration, and because the petitioner is
engaged on 'daily wages as defined under the Rules of 2016, the petitioner is plainly entitled to
regularisation under the said rules." As a result, the petitioner was ordered to be regularised
within four months of the ruling.
