The Supreme Court of Jammu and Kashmir ruled that forcing an employee to perform the duties of a higher position while paying them a lower salary is considered workplace exploitation, which is prohibited by law.
The bench, which included Chief Justice Pushpendra Singh Bathi and Judge Rajesh Sehri, issued these remarks while dismissing the appeal by the Jammu and Kashmir government against the decision of the single bench. This decision concerned granting a de facto promotion and corresponding benefits to a municipal worker.
The petitioner, Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh, began working in the Sopore municipal council as a daily worker in 1980, and his employment relationship was legalized in 1988. In his lawsuit, Sheikh pointed out that although his colleague in a similar situation, Hazir Mohammad Shah, was promoted to the position of Jamadar/Sanitary Supervisor in 1994, he was denied a promotion despite being legalized in the same year.
Subsequently, he approached the Supreme Court, which ordered the authorities to consider his promotion claim in 1999. However, this order was not fully implemented and in accordance with the letter of the law.
After reviewing Sheikh's petition on May 2, 2023, the single bench ruled that he should be considered de facto appointed and promoted to Sanitary Supervisor since April 28, 2005, including all subsequent benefits.
Sheikh had been performing the duties of Jamadar/Sanitary Supervisor since June 2000, first at his own rate and category, and then with an allowance for performing duties since April 28, 2005. The state administration challenged this decision before the bench of judges, arguing that merely performing the duties of a higher position does not entitle one to a de facto promotion or a corresponding pay scale.
Rejecting the government's arguments, the bench stated that although an employee generally cannot claim the pay scale of a higher position solely because they performed its duties, there is an exception when the employee was officially ordered to perform those duties. The bench of judges found no illegality or impropriety in the single bench's decision and upheld its directives.