Srinagar: The High Court Thursday said that repeated filing of successive petitions for the same cause of action was the abuse of the process of law.
“The repeated filing of successive writ petitions virtually for the same cause of action in seeking regularisation 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,” a division bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul said dismissing an appeal.
The court rejected the appeal filed by a daily-waged person who had sought regularisation of his services in terms of SRO-64 of 1994 Agriculture and Sericulture Development Department.
In the matters of regularisation of services based upon factual aspects, the court said that it was not always possible for it to verify the factual aspects on the basis of the record produced or the documents on record.
“When repeatedly a consideration has been accorded in the matter of regularisation 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.
It said that in such circumstances it was 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 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 to ascertain the disputed questions regarding continuous discharge of duties by the daily-wager for a continuous period of seven years which was one of the conditions for regularisation in terms of SRO-64 of 1994.
The appellant contended that he was appointed as a daily-wager in the Agriculture and Sericulture Development Department in 1986.
He claimed regularisation in terms of SRO-64 of 1994 with the contention that he had completed seven years of “continuous” service.
After the government had first rejected his claim vide an order on 24 August 1998, he challenged the same before the court.
On 7 April 2008, the court had asked the 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 25 October 2008, rejecting his claim.
Accordingly, the contempt proceedings were closed on 12 March 2009 giving liberty to him to challenge the consideration order.
His another plea, challenging 25 October 2008 order was disposed on 4 April 2016 by the court with the direction to authorities to extend the benefit of the judgment and order dated 17 March 2016 passed in another case provided he was similarly circumstanced with the petitioner in that plea.
Again no consideration was accorded and he filed a petition which was disposed of by the court on 10 August 2018 with the direction to the authorities concerned to consider his case afresh after examining the entire records as to whether he had completed seven years of continuous service or not. Subsequently, on 12 February 2018, the government again refused to regularise his services on the ground that he was not eligible for regularisation under SRO-64.
This order was challenged by him again before a single bench which had dismissed his plea.
Against the dismissal he had filed an appeal that too was dismissed on Thursday.