"Wages Follow the Post, Not the Person":
Commentary on Umer Mukhtar Mir v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors. (Forest Department)

1. Introduction

The judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar on 14 November 2025 in WP(C) No. 2176/2023, Umer Mukhtar Mir v. UT of J&K & Anr., addresses a recurring and practically important question in public employment:

• When a worker is engaged on a particular post (here, “Orderly”) but is actually deputed to perform higher-skilled duties (here, “Computer Operator”), does he become entitled to the minimum wages applicable to the higher “skilled” category?

The Court’s answer is categorical: no. It affirms the principle that wages attach to the post/position for which a worker is formally engaged, and not to the worker’s qualifications or the higher duties he may in fact perform, at least within the framework of the minimum wages notification (S.O. 513 of 2022) and the particular engagement scheme (CAMPA).

The case sits at the intersection of:

• minimum wage law and classification of workers into skilled/unskilled categories,
• need-based/contractual engagements in government departments, and
• the limits of claims based on actual duties performed as opposed to the sanctioned post.

2. Factual Background and Procedural History

2.1 Engagement under CAMPA

The petitioner, Umer Mukhtar Mir, responded to an advertisement issued by the Forest Department for engagement of manpower on a “need basis” in the Jammu & Kashmir State CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority). Following the selection process, he was engaged as an Orderly by order dated 12.07.2013 (the judgment also refers to 13.07.2013 / 13.08.2013, but consistently treats him as “Orderly”).

Significantly, the engagement order recorded that he was “computer knowing”, and he was deputed to work as a Computer Operator and has, by his account, been working as such for about ten years.

2.2 Claim for Skilled Wages under S.O. 513 of 2022

The Department of Labour & Employment, UT of J&K, issued S.O. 513 of 2022 dated 12.10.2022, fixing minimum daily wages for different categories, including:

• Skilled workers, with a specified rate (stated in the petition as Rs. 483 per day).

The petitioner asserted that:

• He has in fact been functioning as a Computer Operator, which falls in the category of “skilled workers” or, alternatively, under the “ministerial” category.
• He is therefore entitled to wages at the rate applicable to skilled/ministerial workers under S.O. 513 of 2022.
• Notwithstanding this, the Forest Department categorized him as an unskilled worker and paid him wages accordingly (Rs. 9330 per month, calculated as unskilled wages).

2.3 Earlier Writ Petition and Consideration Order

Before filing the present writ petition, the petitioner had already approached the High Court in WP(C) No. 1249/2023, seeking precisely this relief.

By order dated 24.05.2023, the Court in that earlier petition directed the respondents to:

• consider the petitioner’s case in accordance with law and in light of S.O. 513 of 2022.

Pursuant to that direction, the respondents passed Order No. 37/FOREST dated 24.06.2023, rejecting the petitioner’s claim to be treated as skilled/ministerial for wage purposes. That order became the subject of challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Issues Before the Court

From the pleadings and the judgment, the core issues can be framed as:

1. Whether a worker engaged as an “Orderly” on a need-basis under CAMPA, but deputed to work as a “Computer Operator”, is entitled to minimum wages at the rates notified for skilled/ministerial workers under S.O. 513 of 2022.
2. Whether the petitioner can invoke SRO 335 of 1991 (J&K Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules) to claim that his duties fall under the ministerial category, and therefore he must be paid accordingly.
3. More generally, does the law attach wages to the formal post of engagement, or to the actual work performed and the qualifications of the worker?

4. Summary of the Judgment

The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the rejection order.

Key findings:

1. Nature of Engagement: The engagement order clearly designates the petitioner as an Orderly, though it notes that he is “computer knowing”. Some other candidates were explicitly engaged as Computer Operators. The petitioner had applied for and was selected to the post of Orderly, not Computer Operator.
2. Determinant for Wage Category: The Court holds that an employee is entitled to wages attached to the post/position for which he is engaged. He cannot claim wages of a higher post merely because:
   • he is qualified to hold that higher post, or
   • he may be functioning as or assisting in higher-skilled duties (e.g. computer operations).
3. Skilled vs Unskilled Classification: Since the petitioner was engaged as an unskilled “Orderly”, he is correctly being paid as an unskilled worker under S.O. 513 of 2022. His claim to be treated as a skilled worker solely on the basis of his duties or knowledge was rejected.
4. Non-application of SRO 335 of 1991: The Court accepts the respondents’ contention that SRO 335 of 1991 (J&K Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules) does not govern the petitioner’s engagement, as he is not on the permanent establishment of the Forest Department but engaged only on a need basis under CAMPA.
5. Conclusion: On these grounds, the petition was found to be without merit and was dismissed. Any interim directions stood vacated.

The central principle crystallised by the Court may be expressed as:

“An employee or a worker is entitled to wages attached to a post/position. He cannot claim wages attached to a higher post/position merely because he is qualified to hold such post/position.”

5. Detailed Analysis

5.1 Statutory and Regulatory Framework

5.1.1 S.O. 513 of 2022 – Minimum Wages Notification

The petitioner’s claim is anchored in S.O. 513 of 2022, a statutory order issued by the Department of Labour & Employment, fixing minimum daily wages for categories such as:

• Unskilled workers,
• Skilled workers,
• and other possible classifications (e.g. semi-skilled, highly skilled, etc., depending on the notification).

The petitioner argued:

• “Computer Operator” is a skilled or ministerial category; therefore, since he works as Computer Operator, he falls in the skilled category.
• Under S.O. 513, skilled workers are entitled to minimum wages of Rs. 483 per day, which he should receive instead of the unskilled rate.

The State, however, treated him as an unskilled worker, relying on (i) his post of engagement (“Orderly”), and (ii) the internal categorisation in CAMPA based on educational and technical qualifications.

5.1.2 SRO 335 of 1991 – J&K Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules

The petitioner invoked SRO 335 of 1991, by which the J&K Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, 1991 were notified. These Rules classify posts and set out recruitment norms for various categories of subordinate (non-gazetted) staff, including ministerial staff such as clerks, typists, and by extension, computer operators.

His argument, in substance:

• “Computer Operator” is a ministerial post within the Forest Department cadre structure under SRO 335/1991.
• Since he is discharging duties of that ministerial category, he should be paid as such.

The respondents countered that:

• SRO 335/1991 applies to recruitment and service conditions of persons on the regular establishment.
• The petitioner is a need-based worker under CAMPA, not borne on the permanent cadre; therefore, the Subordinate Service Rules do not regulate his case.

The Court agreed with the respondents: SRO 335/1991 has no application to a need-based CAMPA engagement, particularly in matters of wage classification for minimum wages.

5.1.3 CAMPA “Need-Based” Engagements

Though the judgment does not elaborate on the full contours of the CAMPA framework, from the text we know that:

• The petitioner was engaged under a CAMPA scheme in the Forest Department.
• His engagement was not against a regular or temporary sanctioned post, but rather on a “need basis” for specific project work.
• His appointment orders were issued for one year at a time, with extensions from year to year.

This categorisation as a need-based, scheme-specific worker is central to the Court’s acceptance that:

• He falls outside the regular civil service framework (and therefore outside SRO 335/1991); and
• His wages are to be governed solely by the applicable minimum wage notification and the post to which he was actually engaged (Orderly), not by the notional equivalence of his duties to ministerial work.

5.2 “Precedents Cited”: An Absence Worth Noting

Notably, the judgment is relatively concise and does not cite any previous judicial decisions—neither of the Supreme Court nor of other High Courts—on:

• the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”, or
• the relationship between post designation and entitlement to pay.

Instead, the Court relies on:

• the text of the engagement order(s),
• the statutory instruments (S.O. 513/2022, SRO 335/1991), and
• a general principle of service law that wages attach to the post, not to the person.

This is not to say that the principle is novel; Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly articulated the notion that:

“Salary is attached to the post and not to the person.”

The innovation (or at least, the clarification) here lies in its application to minimum wage classification of need-based workers under a specific scheme (CAMPA), without invoking the broader body of “equal pay for equal work” jurisprudence.

5.3 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

5.3.1 Determining the Petitioner’s Post: “Orderly”, Not “Computer Operator”

At the heart of the case is the engagement order. The Court carefully notes that:

• The order of engagement explicitly appoints the petitioner as an “Orderly”.
• It simultaneously notes that he is “computer knowing”.
• In the same selection/engagement order, some other candidates were clearly appointed as “Computer Operators”.

This factual scenario is crucial. The Court reasons:

• The petitioner chose to apply for the post of Orderly.
• He did not apply for the post of Computer Operator, despite being computer literate.
• He was selected and appointed as an Orderly; thus, that is his post for all legal and wage-related purposes within this framework.

The respondents’ argument—that if he had the requisite technical qualifications, he ought to have applied to the post of Computer Operator—is accepted as logical and consistent with the record.

5.3.2 Wages Attach to the Post, Not to Qualification or Actual Work

The Court articulates the principle clearly in paragraph 11–12 of the judgment:

• Mere possession of skills, qualifications, or knowledge (here, being “computer knowing”) does not entitle a worker to wages of the skilled category.
• An employee/worker is entitled to the wages attached to the particular post or position to which he is formally engaged (here, Orderly).
• A worker cannot claim wages attached to a higher post solely because he is qualified to hold it, or because he may actually be performing tasks associated with that higher post.

Applying this principle:

• Even if the petitioner has been functioning as a Computer Operator for many years, he remains legally an Orderly for wage purposes.
• Therefore, he can only claim the unskilled worker’s rate under S.O. 513/2022, which the respondents have been paying.

5.3.3 Rejection of “Ministerial Category” Argument under SRO 335/1991

The petitioner also advanced a second line of argument: that his work is of a ministerial nature (Computer Operator), and under SRO 335/1991 the ministerial category warrants higher wages. The Court rejects this on two main grounds:

1. Wrong Legal Framework: SRO 335/1991 governs recruitment and service conditions of subordinate service employees on the regular establishment. The petitioner is a need-based CAMPA worker, not borne on the permanent cadre; hence these Rules do not regulate his appointment, categorisation, or wages.
2. Primary Determinant is Engagement Post: Even if one analogically equates “Computer Operator” with ministerial category, the critical fact remains that the petitioner is not appointed as a Computer Operator. His post—Orderly—falls under unskilled category, and wages must follow that post.

5.3.4 Treatment of Alleged Discriminatory Practice

The petitioner contended that:

• other employees such as Computer Operator, Driver, Office Assistant, Accounts Assistant were treated as skilled or ministerial and paid higher minimum wages; and
• only in his case, a different yardstick was being applied, suggesting arbitrariness or discrimination.

The judgment does not engage in detail with:

• whether there are in fact other similarly placed “Orderlies” doing computer work who are being paid differently, or
• whether any of these categories share identical posts but different wages.

Instead, the Court appears to treat the alleged disparity as immaterial to the core principle: since those other workers are formally appointed to different posts (Computer Operator, Driver, Office Assistant, etc.), they legitimately fall in different wage categories. In other words:

Equality of treatment is measured by equality of formal post and status, not merely by similarity of certain duties or skills exercised.

5.4 Doctrinal Context and Critical Appraisal

5.4.1 Relationship with “Equal Pay for Equal Work” Jurisprudence

Across India, courts have repeatedly dealt with the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”. The usual question is whether temporary, daily wage, or contract workers performing identical or substantially similar duties as regular employees can claim parity in pay.

In many such cases, the Supreme Court has emphasised that:

• mere difference in nomenclature or source of recruitment may not justify pay disparity, where the work, responsibilities, and functions are identical; but
• factors like mode of recruitment, qualifications, nature of appointment (temporary vs permanent) and responsibilities can be relevant differentiators.

The present judgment, however, does not delve into this line of authority. Instead, it takes a more formal and categorical approach:

• It does not examine whether the petitioner’s duties as de facto Computer Operator are substantially the same as those of a formally appointed Computer Operator.
• It does not weigh whether long-term, de facto discharge of higher duties might trigger any principle of parity.
• It rests the entire analysis on the formal designation of the post of engagement.

From a doctrinal standpoint, this makes the judgment:

• clear and administratively convenient (departments can safely rely on designations and engagement orders); but
• possibly less sensitive to functional realities, where government bodies often use lower-designation engagements to extract higher-level work from vulnerable workers.

5.4.2 Limitations and Potential Critiques

Some critical questions that could be raised include:

1. Long Duration of Higher Duties: The petitioner alleged that he had been functioning as a Computer Operator for about ten years. The judgment acknowledges this only briefly and does not explore whether such prolonged assignment could create an entitlement, or at least a legitimate expectation, to skilled wages.
2. Lack of Inquiry into Actual Work Performed: The Court effectively says “even if he may be assisting in computer operations”, he remains an Orderly. No factual inquiry is undertaken into:
   • whether he has been handling exclusive computer operator work;
   • whether the Department has systematically used Orderlies to do Computer Operator tasks to save costs; or
   • whether there is any internal guideline classifying “Orderly” as unskilled even when assigned technical tasks.
3. Equality Angle Under Article 14: The argument that similarly placed workers (if any) have been treated differently is not systematically examined under an Article 14 lens. The Court’s implicit stance is that difference of post itself suffices to rebut any allegation of discrimination.

These limitations do not make the judgment legally unsound, but they shape its reach: it becomes a precedent firmly anchoring wage entitlements to post-designation, while leaving open the possibility that a more detailed factual and constitutional scrutiny could, in another case, lead to a different outcome.

5.5 Impact and Future Implications

5.5.1 For Need-Based and Scheme-Based Workers (CAMPA and Beyond)

The decision has immediate consequences for need-based workers engaged under schemes like CAMPA:

• Workers cannot claim skilled/ministerial wages merely because of the nature of tasks subsequently entrusted to them, if their formal post of engagement is unskilled.
• Departments may continue to structure engagements so that workers are formally appointed to lower categories (e.g., “Orderly”) while being used in higher-level roles, without immediate wage consequences—though this may raise separate questions of fairness and legality in future litigation.
• Efforts to seek parity must focus on challenging the initial classification and engagement process itself, rather than only on post facto duties.

5.5.2 For Wage Claims under Minimum Wage Notifications

The judgment clarifies that, for the purposes of a minimum wage notification like S.O. 513/2022:

• The classification of a worker (skilled vs unskilled) is tied to the post to which he is engaged, not independently to his qualification or real-world tasks.
• Employees seeking higher-category wages must demonstrate:
  • either that their post itself is misclassified, or
  • that in law, they should be deemed to hold the higher post (for example, by some principle of promotion, regularisation, or re-designation).

5.5.3 For Government HR Practices

From an administrative angle, the judgment:

• Gives comfort to departments that post-designation is a defensible basis for wage classification under minimum wage laws.
• At the same time, it may incentivise departments—unless constrained by other legal or policy measures—to engage workers in lower categories while informal duties assigned are substantially higher. This can, over time, generate labour disputes and constitutional challenges on fairness and arbitrariness grounds.

6. Complex Concepts Simplified

Need-Based Engagement

This refers to employment that is not against a permanent or regularly sanctioned post, but made to meet temporary or project-specific needs. Such engagements:

• are often for fixed periods (e.g., one year at a time),
• do not grant the worker the status of a regular government servant, and
• are typically governed by scheme-specific guidelines and minimum wage laws, rather than comprehensive service rules.

Minimum Wage Notification (e.g., S.O. 513 of 2022)

A statutory order issued by the government under its powers (often under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, or successor regimes), fixing the minimum amount that must be paid per day to workers in different categories, such as:

• Unskilled,
• Semi-skilled,
• Skilled,
• Highly skilled.

Employers, including government departments, cannot legally pay less than this notified amount.

Skilled vs Unskilled Worker

Unskilled workers usually perform tasks requiring little or no formal training (e.g., helpers, basic manual labour). Skilled workers perform jobs requiring specific training, technical knowledge, or expertise (e.g., electricians, computer operators). Which category a worker belongs to affects the minimum wage rate he or she is entitled to.

“Wages Attach to the Post, Not to the Person”

A long-standing service law principle meaning that:

• The salary and allowances are linked to the post or position in the organisation, not to the individual’s personal qualities or qualifications.
• Even if an individual has higher qualifications or occasionally performs higher-level duties, they do not automatically acquire the pay of that higher post in the absence of a formal appointment or promotion.

SRO 335 of 1991 – Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules

A statutory rule (Statutory Rules and Orders – SRO) under which the J&K government laid down recruitment and service conditions for subordinate services, including categories like ministerial staff. It is primarily applicable to persons on the permanent establishment of departments, and not to need-based or scheme-based workers unless specifically extended.

Speaking Judgment

When a judgment is labelled as “speaking”, it means the Court has provided reasons for its decision, rather than issuing a bare order. This judgment is explicitly noted as a speaking one, which means its reasoning can be relied upon as precedent.

Reportable Judgment

The judgment form contains “Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No”. A “reportable” judgment is one that is considered of sufficient legal importance to be published in law reports. The decision on reportability is administrative, but the presence of a clear legal principle here makes it potentially reportable.

7. Conclusion: Key Takeaways and Significance

The decision in Umer Mukhtar Mir v. UT of J&K & Ors. lays down, in a clear and concise manner, a principle of considerable practical importance:

For need-based workers under schemes like CAMPA, entitlement to minimum wages at the skilled or ministerial rate is determined by the post of engagement (as reflected in the appointment order), not by the worker’s qualifications or the higher-skilled duties he may in fact be performing.

In doing so, the Court:

• Upholds the primacy of the formal post designation (Orderly vs Computer Operator) in wage classification.
• Rejects attempts to use ministerial service rules (SRO 335/1991) to re-characterize a need-based CAMPA engagement.
• Affirms the general proposition that wages follow the post, not the person or the actual tasks performed, at least in the context of minimum wage notifications and scheme-based appointments.

From a broader perspective, the judgment:

• Provides administrative clarity for government departments on how to classify need-based workers under minimum wage notifications; but
• May invite future litigants, in other cases, to more squarely raise and substantiate claims under the “equal pay for equal work” doctrine and Article 14, especially where long-term higher-duty work is extracted from workers formally appointed to lower posts.

In sum, the case stands as an important precedent in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on the limits of wage claims by need-based and scheme-based workers, and reinforces a formalistic but administratively stable rule: minimum wage entitlements flow from the contractual and statutory post of engagement, not from de facto functions or qualifications.