<\/p>\n
Overview<\/b><\/p>\n
In this case, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir had to decide whether a group of professionals in a contract were entitled to remuneration for a period after their contracts had already expired. The appeal arose from a judgement of a Single Judge who gave certain directions to the authorities to pay the remuneration till March 2020 on the ground that the professionals continued to work, even after their contractual tenure had ended.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This decision was challenged by the Union Territory Administration before the Division Bench. As per the authorities the respondents had already been disengaged through orders issued in 2019, and there was no proper record to show that they continued to perform official duties after the same. The dispute revolves around whether remuneration could be claimed from public funds when there is no formal extension of service.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Facts of the Case<\/b><\/p>\n The respondents were given a contract for urban planning projects in Srinagar and Anantnag. The appointments were made for a certain period to assist in preparation of the master as well as the zonal plans.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The professionals engaged for the Srinagar Metropolitan Region at first worked between March 2018 and February 2019. Their contracts were extended until 31 August 2019. Similarly, the professionals engaged for the Anantnag Project worked till June 2019, under their contractual arrangements.<\/span><\/p>\n Before these engagements expired, the competent authorities issued certain circulars, informing the respondents that their services would be discontinued upon completing the contractual period. They were also asked to hand over any official data, records, and equipment that had been provided to them for the execution of the projects.<\/span><\/p>\n Even after these communications, the respondents claimed that they continued to work under the instructions and therefore were entitled to remuneration until March 2020. This claim was supported by the experience certificates as well as certain communications issued in 2020.<\/span><\/p>\n The writ court accepted the same and directions for payment of the remuneration for the additional period were issued. Aggrieved by the same, the authorities preferred the present appeal.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Legal Issues<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Decision<\/b><\/p>\n The Division Bench set aside the judgement of the writ court and allowed the appeal.<\/span><\/p>\n It was found that the respondents failed to establish that they were legally engaged after their contracts expired. The formal disengagement circulars issued by the competent authorities were particularly relevant. The Court noted that these documents properly demonstrated that the contractual relationship came to an end.<\/span><\/p>\n The Bench also expressed certain doubts as to the evidentiary value of the certificates relied upon by the respondents. It couldn\u2019t accept the fact that the same authority which issued the orders as to disengagement could certify continuation of service for the disputed period.<\/span><\/p>\n It was further observed that there was no formal order, extending the contracts or allowing the respondents to continue their work. Mere assertions as to the verbal communication could not create a legal entitlement to be paid from the public exchequer.<\/span><\/p>\n While holding that the respondent failed to prove any authorised service beyond their contractual tenure, the claims were dismissed by the Division Bench, and it was concluded that the writ court erred in directing the payment of remuneration. The petitions were dismissed accordingly, and the appeal was allowed.<\/span><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others Vs.\u00a0 Mohd. Shafi Yatoo and others\u00a0 LPA No. 257\/2025 (DB, Before Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar, JJ.) Overview In this case, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir had to decide whether a group of professionals in a contract were entitled to remuneration for a period after […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3785,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3783","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3783","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3783"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3783\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3787,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3783\/revisions\/3787"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3785"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n