Ghulam Mohammad Lone & Ors vs Dr. Pawan Kumar Kotwal

Rashid Ali Dar, J

Initiation of contempt proceedings has been sought by medium of instant petition wherein it is pleaded that the order passed by this Court on 14.03.2012 in SWP No.1645/2008 has been observed in breach by the respondents. It is also being contended that the respondents on receipt of the order were under an obligation to implement the same but they have not taken any step to have its compliance. Further it is contended in the contempt petition that the retrospective effect to the regularization had to be accorded as the claim of the petitioner had been admitted, which, according to the petitioners, was evidenced by letter dated 28.04.2012.

Copy of the order passed by the Court, non-compliance of which is alleged, has been annexed with the petition wherein conclusion has been noted as:

"In view of the case set up and stand taken by the Ld.

Counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioners' case and in any case take a decision in the matter within six weeks from the date copy of this order is served on the respondents."

It appears from the perusal of the order dated 14.03.2012 that Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. PHE and I&FC Department, Srinagar, Chief Engineer, PHE Kashmir, Superintending Engineer, PHE Mechanical Circle North, Srinagar, Executive Engineer, PHE Mechanical Division (North), Sopore and Executive Engineer, PHE Division Baramulla, had been arrayed as respondents. In the contempt petition initiation of contempt was sought against Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. PHE and I&FC Department. Compliance report was submitted on behalf of Chief Engineer, PHE Kashmir, Srinagar, on 23.12.2016, wherein averments of the contempt petition have been replied as:

(I) The answering respondent being responsible and law abiding citizen having great respect and faith in the rule of law and majesty and dignity of Hon'ble Courts and, as such, cannot even imagine to cause any interference in the administration of justice or think about violation of any direction passed by the Hon'ble High Court.

(II) In compliance to the Hon'ble High Court order the case of the petitioners was considered in light of the relevant rules and in this regard a consideration order was issued vide No.18972-76 dated 22.12.2016, whereby claim of the petitioners was rejected.

(III) The petitioners services have been regularized with effect from 4/2004 and their services cannot be given retrospective effect at this stage, which will cause chaos and confusion in the entire department coupled with the fact that there is no such authentic record available to reveal that the petitioners were engaged as regular daily rated workers in 1988 from which year they seek retrospective effect to their regularization .

(IV) The respondents have not committed any non-compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in any manner but the delay caused is due to procedural formalities.

Thereafter pursuant to order passed on 22.12.2017, fresh compliance/ statement of facts has been submitted on behalf of Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Public Health Engineering, Irrigation and Flood Control Department (against whom initiation of contempt proceedings has been sought). Common plea taken in both the statement of facts is that the consideration in pursuance of order of this Court was made and the petitioners were not found eligible for retrospective effect to their regularization. Copy of the consideration order has been annexed with the statement of facts wherein, after making reference of relevant facts, it has been stated that:

"The case of the petitioners was considered in light of the relevant rules and it was found that there is no such authentic record available which depict that the petitioners were engaged as regular daily rated workers by virtue of engagement orders in the year 1988, hence the case of the petitioners is not covered under the parameters of SRO 64 of 1994 and therefore the claim of the petitioners is rejected."

There is no representation today on behalf of the petitioners. Response too has not been filed after statement of facts was filed by the respondents. Be it so, having regard to the facts as noted above, no scope is found for proceeding further in the matter, as such, contempt proceedings are closed. Petitioners shall be at liberty to take recourse to remedial measures, if any, subject to survival of cause.