The apex court had framed questions for the tribunal to examine the issues plaguing the army porters, the civilian part of the army deployed in some sectors like Nowshera (Rajouri) in Jammu and Kashmir but the Centre requested that it be given a week's time to analyse the aspect.
"Now that I have got to know the mood of the court, let me have some reaction time. Let me come back next week," Additional Solicitor General P S Patwalia pleaded before the bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur which posted the matter for hearing on July 29.
"We want to know the larger picture. A large number of people are working as porters with the army in the region. The report will speak," the bench, which had already framed number of questions to be looked into by the tribunal, said.
It said it wanted the report of the tribunal on number of porters deployed by the army, the condition of their employment and nature of work they are asked to perform.
The bench had also framed the question about ammunition carried by the porters and wanted to know what type of records are maintained and can there be a way to improve the service condition.
The bench said it wanted to know the real state of affairs
on the issue to arrive at some solution.
"Does this involve security of state or threat to a territory. It is not something which we should grudge," it observed.
The court said the matter was being argued by senior advocate Bhim Singh, who is also chief of Panthers Party and is well-versed with the region.
"Bhim Singh is a public figure in the region. He has his voters there," it said about Singh, who was appearing for the army porters.
He has accused the Centre of not complying with the 2013 order of the apex court.
The court had directed the Centre in May 2013 to consider within four months the plea of the army porters, who have been working for 15 years, for regularising them on the basis of their service record.
It was submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal had taken note of their plea in its order on May 21, 2009, but rejected their claim while relying on the judgement of a Constitution Bench of the apex court.
When the porters appealed before the Armed Forces Tribunal, it did not hear the matter on the dispute of jurisdiction.
The apex court, however, had said it was keeping the issue of jurisdiction open.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
