Suhail Maqbool vs Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah on 14 July, 2026

    0
    8
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

    Suhail Maqbool vs Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah on 14 July, 2026

    Author: Sanjay Dhar

    Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                                        Serial No. 45
                                                                        Suppl Cause List.
    
    
          HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT SRINAGAR
                                       *******
                                   WP(C) 1223/2022
                              CM(1159/2026) CM(3014/2022).
    
    SUHAIL MAQBOOL.
                                                                     ...Petitioner (s)
                 Through:     Mr. Mir Manzoor, Advocate.
                                            VERSUS
    
    UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS.
    
                 Through:     Mr. M. Younis Hafeez, Assisting Counsel vice
                              Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, Government Advocate.
                                                                    ...Respondent(s)
    
    CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.
    
                                       ORDER
    

    14-07-2026

    01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, is seeking

    SPONSORED

    a direction upon the respondents to release his legitimately earned salary in his

    favour.

    02. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Rehbar-e-Khel

    Vide Order No. DG-YSS/Estt/10208 dated 1st of February 2019 and, vide Order

    dated 28th of February 2019, was posted at UPS Panner.

    03. It has been further submitted that, as per the report of the Central

    Investigation Department (CID), the petitioner is involved in a criminal case

    arising out of FIR No. 63/2015 for the commission of an offence under Section

    489 RPC, registered at Police Station Tral. Though the petitioner has been

    working with the respondents since the year 2019, yet the respondents have not

    released his salary.

    04. The respondents have filed their reply to the Writ petition and have

    also placed on record a status report pursuant to the directions dated 24th of

    February 2025 passed by this Court. In the status report as well as in the objections

    filed by the respondents, it has been submitted that the petitioner is still working

    with the respondents. However, the respondents have taken a stand that, because

    of the pendency of the challan arising out of the aforesaid FIR against the

    petitioner, his salary has been withheld. It has further been submitted that, as per

    the terms and conditions of the engagement of the petitioner, his engagement is

    liable to be terminated in case any adverse report with regard to his character

    antecedents is received from the police authorities. Thus, according to the

    respondents, the engagement of the petitioner is liable to be terminated.

    05. Heard and considered.

    06. It is an admitted case of the parties that, upon verification of the

    character antecedents of the petitioner, he was found to be involved in a criminal

    case arising out of the FIR No. 63/2015. It is also admitted case of the parties that,

    despite the respondents coming to know about the pendency of the said criminal

    case against the petitioner, they have allowed him to continue in service, even

    though there is no interim order passed by this Court restraining the respondents

    from disengaging the services of the petitioner.

    07. The stand of the respondents that the engagement of the petitioner is

    liable to be terminated because of his involvement in the criminal case is not

    material for deciding the issue at hand, because it is not the case of the respondents

    that they have taken any action against the petitioner till date. Once it is admitted

    by the respondents that the petitioner is working with them, they cannot deny him
    his legitimately earned salary. Denying the salary of the petitioner after extracting

    work from his would amount to a violation of his right guaranteed under Article

    23 of the Constitution of India. It is legally impermissible for the respondents to

    extract work from the petitioner without paying wages for the same, as such an

    action amounts to begar,(forced labour) which is prohibited.

    09. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the instant petition

    is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the outstanding

    wages/remuneration of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date

    a copy of this order is made available to them, failing which the outstanding

    wages/remuneration shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date

    of filing of the writ petition till the date of its realization.

    10. Disposed of along with connected CMs.

    (Sanjay Dhar)
    Judge

    SRINAGAR
    14-07-2026
    Showkat Khan



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here