MUDASIR AHMAD NAZAR AND ORS vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (SOCIAL WELFARE) AND ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 12.05.2026
Pronounced on: 15 .05.2026
Uploaded on: 15.05.2026
Whether operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
WP(C) No.1496/2025
MUDASIR AHMAD NAZAR & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Zubair, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Waseem Gull, GA.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT

1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition,
has challenged order No.92-MV of 2024 dated 13.12.2024 issued
by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, whereby their claim for
release of remuneration/salary has been rejected. The petitioners
have also sought a direction upon the respondents to release
remuneration/salary in their favour with effect from 25.08.2022
to 28.03.2023.
2) As per case of the petitioners, they were appointed as
Chairpersons/Members of Child Welfare Committees and
Juvenile Justice Boards vide Government Order No.10-SW pf
2018 dated 12.01.2018 and Order No.52-SW of 2018 dated
06.02.2018, initially for a period of three years. It has been
submitted that pursuant to coming into force of the Jammu and
WP(C) No.1496/2025 Page 1 of 7

Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, the Jammu and Kashmir
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2013 (for
short “JJ Act of 2013”) was repealed and it was replaced by the
Central Act, namely, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 (for short “JJ Act of 2015”). Since the
petitioners were appointed in terms of repealed JJ Act of 2013 and
the JJ Act of 2015 had come into force, as such, position and
appointment of members of Child Welfare Committees and
Juvenile Justice Boards underwent a change.
3) It has been submitted that the petitioners claimed that they
were protected by law and were entitled to further extension and
continuation as members of the Child Welfare Committees and
Juvenile Justice Boards. On account of this dispute, the
petitioners are stated to have filed a writ petition before this Court
bearing WP(C) No.1742/2022, wherein an interim order came to
be passed on 12.08.2022 protecting position of the petitioners. It
has been submitted that another writ petition came to be filed
before the Jammu wing of this Court in which an interim order
came to be passed by the Court which resulted in continuation of
the petitioners as members of the Child Welfare Committees and
Juvenile Justice Boards. Thus, the petitioners on the strength of
the aforesaid interim order continued in service of the
respondents upto 29.03.2023. It has been submitted that WP(C)
No.1742/2022 filed by the petitioners was dismissed by this Court
in terms of order dated 28.03.2023, as a result of which the
WP(C) No.1496/2025 Page 2 of 7

petitioners ceased to function as members of the Child Welfare
Committees and Juvenile Justice Board.
4) According to the petitioners, some of them have been
reappointed in terms of the JJ Act of 2015 whereas some of the
petitioners were not selected/appointed. However, all the
petitioners are stated to have discharged their duties and
functions even after the expiry of their term on 24.08.2022 on the
strength of interim order passed by this Court.
5) The petitioners are stated to have filed a writ petition
bearing WP(C) No.3217/2023 seeking a direction upon the
respondents to release their remuneration/salary with effect from
25.08.2022 to 28.03.2023. The said writ petition came to be
disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 14.10.2024,
whereby the respondents were directed to accord consideration to
the case of the petitioners for release of salary.
6) Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondents have
issued impugned order dated 13.12.2024, whereby they have
rejected claim of the petitioners on the ground that no extension
to their engagement has been granted beyond 24.08.2022,
therefore, they are not entitled to any remuneration/salary
beyond the said period.
7) The petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed
by respondent No.2 on the grounds that once they have performed
duties and functions as Chairpersons/members of the Child
Welfare Committees and Juvenile Justice Boards on the strength
WP(C) No.1496/2025 Page 3 of 7

of interim order passed by the Court, they cannot be denied their
legitimately earned remuneration/salary. It has been contended
that the respondents have rejected claim of the petitioners on the
flimsy ground that their term of engagement was not extended. It
has also been contended that Division Bench of this Court has, in
PIL No.09/2013, vide order dated 27.03.2023, recognized the fact
that the Child Welfare Committees and Juvenile Justice Boards
were in position even after their dissolution on 28.08.2022 in view
of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. On the
basis of this analogy, the petitioners who were manning these
institutions, cannot be denied their remuneration/salary.
8) The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing
their reply. In their reply, they have not denied the factual aspects
of the case but they have claimed that since there was no contract
existing between the petitioners and the respondents beyond
24.08.2022, as such, the respondents are not liable to pay any
remuneration/salary to the petitioners. It has been contended that
after termination of the contract of the petitioners on 24.08.2022,
fresh selection process was initiated, whereafter appointment of
Chairpersons and members of the Child Welfare Committees and
Juvenile Justice Boards has been undertaken. It has been
submitted that the claim of the petitioners has been considered in
the light of rules governing the field and because there was no
contract between the petitioners and the respondent department,
as such, they were not held entitled to remuneration/salary.
WP(C) No.1496/2025 Page 4 of 7

9) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
record of the case
10) As already stated, the factual aspects of the case are not in
dispute. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have performed
their duties as Chairpersons and members of the Child Welfare
Committees and Juvenile Justice Boards beyond 24.08.2022 uptil
the date their writ petition bearing WP(C) No.1742/2022 came to
be dismissed by this Court. It is also not in dispute that on the
strength of interim order passed in the aforesaid writ petition,
engagement of the petitioners continued until dismissal of the
said writ petition. The only issue that is to be determined is as to
whether the respondents are legally justified in denying
remuneration/salary to the petitioners for the period for which
they have discharged their functions on the strength of interim
order passed by this Court.
11) In the above context, it is to be noted that the Division Bench
of this Court has, while passing order dated 27.03.2023 in PIL
No.09/2013, expressed the view that the Child Welfare
Committees and Juvenile Justice Boards, which were dissolved on
28.08.2022, are in position in terms of order of status quo passed
by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, these institutions
exercise all powers conferred upon them under the JJ Act of 2015
and the rules framed thereunder. Once the functions discharged
by the petitioners while continuing in their office on the basis of
interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court,
WP(C) No.1496/2025 Page 5 of 7

have been recognized in law by the Division Bench of this Court,
there is hardly any justification for denying remuneration/salary
to the petitioners for the period for which they have actually
worked. The respondents are, therefore, legally bound to pay the
legitimately earned remuneration/salary to the petitioners for the
period for which they have actually worked. The respondents
cannot, on the one hand, avail services of the petitioners for
operation of Child Welfare Committees and Juvenile Justice
Boards, though the strength of interim order passed by this Court,
and deny salary to them on the other hand. Doing so would be
nothing but an exploitation which amounts to infringement of
right to livelihood of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution. Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits
‘begaar’, which means labour or service without paying
remuneration for it. It is not open to an employer, particularly to
a model employer like the Government, to extract work from its
employees without paying remuneration for it as the same is
violative of Article 23 of the Constitution. Thus, the petitioners
cannot be denied salary/remuneration for the period they have
actually worked.
12) For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed in the
following terms:
(I) The impugned order No.92-MV of 2024 dated
13.12.2024.2023, whereby claim of the petitioners for
release of remuneration/salary beyond 24.08.2022
has been rejected, shall stand quashed.
WP(C) No.1496/2025 Page 6 of 7

(II) The respondents are directed to release
remuneration/salary in favour of the petitioners with
effect from 25.08.2022 to 28.03.2023 at the same rate
at which they were being paid during the term of their
engagement with the respondents.
(III) The aforesaid amount of remuneration/salary shall be
released by the respondents in favour of the
petitioners within a period of two months from the
date of this judgement, failing which the same shall
carry interest @6% per annum from the date of filing
of the writ petition till the date of its actual release.

(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar,
15.05.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”
Whether the JUDGMENT is reportable: YES/NO





WP(C) No.1496/2025 Page 7 of 7