Ghulam Nabi Bhat vs Deeraj Gupta & Ors

The present contempt petition arises on account of non-implementation of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.06.2022 in LPA No. 112/2020 titled Union Territory of J&K and Ors. vs. Ghulam Nabi Bhat. The Petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the contemnors on account of non-implementation of the aforementioned order. The contemnors are Mr Deeraj Gupta, presently the Secretary to Government, Forest Department, Mr Mohit Gera, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, J&K Government and Mr. T. Rabi Kumar, Chief Conservator of Forest, Kashmir Region, Srinagar.

The brief factual background of this case is that the Petitioner came to be engaged in the Forest Department in the year 1993 on casual basis as Watch and Ward. In terms of SRO 64 of 1994, the Petitioner had a right of being regularized after serving for 7 years. However, the Respondents allegedly harassed the Petitioner under one pretext or the other and finally, the Petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition being SWP No. 2858/2015 and this Court, taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner had worked from 1993 on the basis of the record annexed with the writ petition. However, the Court directed the Respondents to take the appropriate decision within six weeks. The date of the order is 04-04-017.

The Petitioner states that in order to delay his claim, the Respondents took the plea that the Petitioner is a casual labourer and hence not entitled to regularization. According to the Petitioner, these pleas were already rejected by this court in the case titled Shahzada Bano vs. State of JK and Ors., which held that casual labourers are to be treated as daily rated workers and, therefore, entitled for regularisation. Besides this, 19 other persons pursued a writ petition titled Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail and Ors. vs. State of J&K and Ors., which was contested by these Respondents on the same ground that the Petitioners in that case being casual workers cannot seek regularization under SRO 64 of 1994. This court allowed the writ petition against which a Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the Respondents herein being LPA No. 33/2010 which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide its order dated 05.05.2015, against which, the Respondents preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court being SLP No. 7766/2015 titled State of JK and Ors. vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail & Ors. which SLP also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, all the 19 writ- Petitioners in that case came to be regularized holding that the casual worker is equally entitled for regularization.

Coming back to this case, as the writ court’s order dated 04.04.2017 was not complied with, the Petitioner filed a contempt petition being CPSW No. 583/2017, and this Court vide its order dated 11.02.2020 granted a final opportunity of four weeks to the Respondents to comply with the order failing which the respondent Principal Chief Conservator of Forest J&K Government Srinagar, was directed to appear in person before the Court.

Against the interim order passed in Contempt Petition No. 583/2017, the Respondents herein preferred a Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 112/2020 which remained pending before this court from 08.09.2020 till it was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 01.06.2022. It is against the non-compliance of the order dated 01.06.2022 that the present contempt petition has been filed.

Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the three Respondents appeared before this Court in person. The learned Sr. AAG put forth the following arguments:-

Firstly, the court trying the contempt petition could not go beyond the parameters of the orders sought to be enforced and could not add anything beyond what was observed or directed in the orders sought to be enforced.

Secondly, he submits that even if the judgment of this court passed in State of J&K and Ors. vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail and Ors. is sought to be applied, even then, the Petitioner being less than 18 years of age could not get the benefit of SRO 64 as Clause 4 sub Clause (b) of SRO 64 makes it clear that the Petitioner ought to have attained the age of eligibility in the year 1993 which was 18 years and as it is an admitted fact that the Petitioner was only 15 years of age, he could not be considered for regularization applying SRO 64.

Thirdly, the learned counsel states that the reports received from the school authorities reflect that during the period he is said to have been in the employment of the Forest Department, he was enrolled as a regular student from Class 10th to Class 12th. In other words, learned Sr. AAG has tried to impress upon us that the Petitioner could not have been in two places together and, therefore, his claim that he was working since 1993 is a fraudulent claim.

The genesis of the present contempt proceedings arises from a writ petition filed by the Petitioner, being SWP No. 2858/ 2015. By the said petition, the Petitioner prayed for a direction from the Court that he, who was working as a daily wager be regularised in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. In the petition, the Petitioner disclosed that he was working with the respondent department since 1993. The learned Single Judge disposed of the petition finally vide its order dated 04/ 04/2017. This said order reads as hereunder: -

“The claim of the Petitioner is with regard to regularisation of service as daily wager in terms of SRO 64 of 1999. It is stated that Petitioner is working with the respondent-department since 1993. The communications are on record with support the case of the Petitioner. However, an appropriate decision is to be taken by the Respondents.

This petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to determine the eligibility of Petitioner under SRO 64 of 1994 and pass orders within six weeks from today.” (Emphasis added) the relevance of the part bearing emphasis shall be discussed at the appropriate place in this order.

However, the aforementioned order was not complied with by the Respondents and so, the Petitioner preferred a contempt petition being CPSW No. 583/ 2017. This Court, vide its order dated 03/09/2019 passed an order directing the Respondents herein to consider the case of the Petitioner in accordance with the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in State of J & K and others Vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail and others – 2013 SLJ 73. Another interim order was also passed on 11/02/2020 granting four weeks’ time to the Respondents to enforce the order dated 04/04/2017, passed by the learned Single Judge. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 11/02/2020 is being reproduced in its entirety as hereunder: -

“In terms of order dated 25th of October, 2019 the Respondents were directed to implement the order subject matter of the instant contempt petition failing which the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest J&K/ Respondent No. 2 herein, was directed to appear in person before the court on the next date of hearing.

Thereafter, in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this court, the respondent No. 2, on 30th of November 2019 filed the compliance report/statement of facts, stating therein that the case of the Petitioner has been referred to the Finance Department for consideration and, that as and when the approval for creation of post is conveyed to the Administrative Department, the regularisation order will be issued in favour of the Petitioner.

The court is not satisfied with the approach adopted by the Respondents resulting in delay in implementation of the directions passed by this court from time to time. Needless to mention that the decision rendered by this court in SWP No. 2858/2015 is against the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the Finance Department, being the component of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, is expected to respect the orders passed by this court and implement the same without any delay. These observations are not only made today, but the same have been recorded in the past in numerous cases as well.

Without making any further observations, one final opportunity is granted to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, J&K/Respondent No. 2 to submit compliance qua implementation of the directions subject matter of the instant contempt petition after pursuing the matter with the Administrative Department as well as the Finance Department within four week’s failing which the said respondent shall appear in person before this court on the next date of hearing.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner shall also take necessary steps for substitution of respondent. No. 1 with the present incumbent in the instant contempt petition, who stands transferred to some other office.

List on 23rd of March 2020.

Registry to forthwith provide a copy of this order to

Ms. Asifa Padroo, learned AAG for compliance.”

The portion bearing emphasis of the aforementioned order reflects that the statement of facts which were filed by the respondent No. 2 (the Respondent herein) in CPSW No. 583/2017 directly acknowledged the right of the Petitioner herein for regularization by clearly stating that his case had been referred to the Finance Department and when the approval for the creation of a post is conveyed to the Administrative Department, the regularization order would be issued in favour of the Petitioner. In other words, the State did not raise any objections with regard to the eligibility of the Petitioner for regularization as a daily wager.

Aggrieved by the requirement in aforementioned interim order dated 11/02/2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in CPSW No. 583/2017, thereby requiring the personal attendance of the Respondent,in the event of non-compliance, the State preferred an appeal before the Division Bench being LPA No. 112/2020, challenging the order dated 03/09/2019 which had required the State to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the judgement of the Division Bench, passed in Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail’s case supra. Before the DB, it was argued on behalf of the State that the direction of the Ld. Single Judge in CPSW No. 583/2017 to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down in Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail’s case, forces the State not only to consider but regularise the service of the Petitioner, thereby tying the hands of the State preventing exercise of its free will. The Co-ordinate Division Bench vide its order dated 01.06.2022, rejected the contention of the State and dismissed the LPA in the following words.

“07. The submission is misconceived and can be taken care of by directing the appellants to strictly consider the case of the respondent Ghulam Nabi Bhat for regularization after determining his eligibility in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 and keeping in mind the law on the subject in vogue, may be any judgment that may have been referred to in the impugned order.

There appears to be no justification on the part of appellants not to accord consideration to the regularization of the respondent Ghulam Nabi Bhat despite directions of this court contained in the order dated 4.4.2017 particularly before the initiation of the contempt proceedings.

Accordingly, we do not find any substance in this appeal and the same is dismissed with the direction to the appellants to accord consideration to the regularization case of Shri Gulam Nabi Bhatt as directed vide order dated 04.04.2017 keeping in mind the case law on the subject.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above observation.” (Emphasis added) Thus, the Division Bench, by the aforesaid order, upheld direction of the single judge trying the contempt case being CPSW No. 583/2017, by which the State was directed to consider the case of the Petitioner in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail’s case.

The present contempt petition has been filed on account of the non-compliance of the directions given by the Division Bench in its order dated 16/02/2022 in LPA No. 112 of 2020.

Before proceeding to consider the arguments put forth on behalf of the Petitioner, it would be essential to refer to three orders passed by this Court in the present case. They are orders dated 18/03/2023, 24/07/2023 and 21/08/23. It is also relevant to mention here that the Respondents have filed CM 5770/2023, as recently as 16/09/2023 for the recall of the three orders. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also referred to the annexures filed along with the said application in order to buttress his case. Before dealing with the said application for recall, we consider it necessary to refer to the specific parts of these daily orders which the Respondents wants to recall. In the order dated 18/03/2023, the operative part of the order by which the Respondents are aggrieved is “since the matter has been referred to the GAD for completing the requisite formality it is hoped that the formal regularization in terms of judgement passed by this court in favour of the Petitioner is issued by the respondents by the next date of hearing without compelling us to take coercive measures”. The operative part of the order dated 24/07/2023 which the Respondent want to recall, reads “…the respondents have filed their statements of facts pursuant to order dated 18/ 03/ 2023 and have rejected the claim of the Petitioner. The rejection of the claim of the Petitioner is contrary to the order dated 01/ 02/ 2023 and 18/ 03/ 2023, vide which this court has already ordered the regularization of the Petitioner be made in terms of the judgement passed by this court and assurance extended by the respondents that they would implement the judgement in letter and spirit in view of these facts this court has no option but to direct the respondents to comply with the judgement dated 18/ 03/ 2023 in letter and spirit failing which respondents 1 to 3 shall appear in person on the next date of hearing…”. The operative part of the order dated 21/08/2023 which the Respondent want to recall, reads “learned counsel appearing for the respondents shall ensure compliance by the next date of hearing and produce the copy of the order with regard to the regularization of service of the appellant in strict compliance of the judgement in its entirety failing which, responded No. 1 Commissioner Secretary shall appear in person. List on 11/ 09/ 2023”. The Ld. Sr. AAG submits that they are aggrieved by the aforementioned three orders passed by this court during the course of hearing of the present contempt petition as the same directs the state to produce the copy of the order with regard to the regularization of service of the appellant which according to the Ld. Sr. AAG is tantamount to making an addition to the original direction passed by this court and therefore against the settled position of law that the contempt court cannot go beyond the scope of contempt. It is further averred in the application for recall, that the Court has inadvertently enlarged the scope of the contempt by making the aforesaid addition and gone beyond the mandate of the order sought to be implemented.

Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the provisions of the SRO 64 of 1994 in order to show that the same is applicable even to casual labourers. He has submitted that the contention of the Ld. Sr. Addl. AG that the Petitioner was not eligible for regularisation under SRO 64 as he was underage (15 years) in the year 1993 when he is stated to have joined the service of the Respondent as a casual labourer and also on the grounds of fraud and fabrication of documents, is an afterthought, as the same was never taken before the Ld. Single Judge in SWP No. 2858/2015 who passed the order dated 04/04/2017. Thereafter, this stand was never taken by the Respondents before the Ld. Single Judge before whom the contempt case being CPSW No. 583/2017 proceeded. Also, In LPA No. 112/2020, filed against the order dated 03/09/2019 passed in CPSW No. 583/2017, this stand was never taken by the Respondent State and finally, this stand was never taken by the Respondent State in the present case, until as recently as 15/09/2023 when they filed their statement of facts/reply, which was the first time ever, that the State has refused regularisation of the Petitioner’s services on the grounds of not having attained the age as per Rule 4 of the SRO 64 and on the grounds of fraud and fabrication of documents.

FINDINGS: heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and examined the record of the case. To understand as to what has actually happened to the Petitioner, it is essential to appreciate the timeline in this case. 20/12/2012 The Judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in State of J&K & Ors., Vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail & Ors – This Court lays down that Casual Labourers should also get the benefit of SRO 64 of 1994 and thereby are entitled for regularisation after seven years of service – Petitioner represents before the Respondents to secure benefit of the judgment. 04/04/2017 Order passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in SWP No. 2858/2015 filed by the Petitioner seeking his regularisation – the Court directs that the petition stands disposed of directing the Respondent to determine the eligibility of the Petitioner under SRO 64 of 1994 and pass orders within six weeks of the order – No action by the Respondent State.

03/09/2019 Interim/daily order passed by this Court in CPSW No. 583/2017 filed by the Petitioner seeking prosecution of the officials of the State for contempt of court on account of their inaction in implementing the order dated 04/04/2017 – Court directs the Respondent State to consider the regularisation of the Petitioner in the light of the judgement of the Division Bench in Mustaq Ahmad Sohail’s case.

11/02/2020 Interim/daily order passed by this Court in CPSW No. 583/2017 giving final opportunity to the Respondents to submit compliance qua implementation of the direction of the Court to regularise the Petitioner else, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest shall personally appear before the Court.

01/06/2022 order dated 03/09/2019 passed in CPSW No. 583/2017 challenged by the Respondents in LPA 112/2020 – Appeal dismissed – DB directs Respondents to consider the regularisation of the Petitioner keeping in mind the judgement of the DB in Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail’s case. NO ACTION BY THE RESPONDENTS.

22/07/22 Present contempt petition CCP No. 34/2022 filed by the Petitioner for compliance of th order dated 01/06/2022, passed in LPA 112/2020.

12/12/2022 Compliance report of the State filed before this Court in the present case rejecting the case of the Petitioner for regularisation.

01/02/2023 Daily order of this Court in the present case where it considers the compliance report dated 12/12/2022 filed by the State and holds that the same has been passed in “utter disregard” to the order of the DB dated 01/06/2022 where the DB had directed the Respondents to consider the regularisation of the Petitioner bearing in mind the relevant caselaw (Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail’s case) – one more opportunity granted to the Respondent to comply with the order of the DB dated 01/06/22, before this Court is compelled to take a “strict view” in the matter – by necessary implication, compliance report dated 12/12/2022 rejected by this Court.

18/03/2023 Daily order of the Court in this case where it hopes that the formal order of regularisation would be passed by the Respondent in compliance of the judgement passed by this Court by the next date of hearing “without compelling us to take coercive measures”.

21/08/2023 Daily order of this Court in the present case. Court questions the Respondents regarding the non-compliance of the order dated 18/03/2023 which expected the Respondents to issue the formal order regularising the Petitioner – The Ld. Sr. AAG appearing for the Respondents, informs the Court that the Respondents are in the process of complying with the order dated 18/03/2023, i.e., issuance of formal order of regularisation of the Petitioner – upon the “assurance” given by the Ld. Sr. AAG to do so, this Court grants two weeks’ time.

15/09/2023 Fresh statement of facts filed by the Respondents – the claim for regularisation of the Petitioner is rejected yet again.

The first submission of the Ld. Sr. Addl. AG is that the first petition filed by the Petitioner (SWP No. 2858/ 2015), was disposed of without granting the relief prayed for by the Petitioner. The Petitioner had prayed for regularisation as a daily wager but, the order dated 04/ 04/ 2017 did not grant that relief. However, the last paragraph of the said order disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Respondent to determine the eligibility of the Petitioner under SRO 64 of 1994. The Ld. Single Judge observed in the said order that the communications on record support the case of the Petitioner but left the decision to the Respondents. Thus, it is clear that the Ld. Single judge was also of the opinion that the Petitioner ought to be regularised as per SRO 64 of 1994. Therefore, the contention of the Ld. Sr. AAG that the Ld. Single Judge did not pass an explicit Mandamus in favour of the Petitioner, does not assist the Respondents.

The Sr. Addl. AG has abandoned the ground that the Petitioner is ineligible for regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994 as he was a casual labourer. Instead, the Ld. Sr. AAG has relied upon R 4 (a) of SRO 64 to hold the Petitioner ineligible for regularisation as he was a minor in the year 1993 and therefore the service he rendered as a minor cannot be taken into reckoning for computing the seven years required as a casual labourer so as to become eligible for regularisation. In this regard, we found that this ground has never been taken by the Respondent State from 2017 till 15/09/2023. It figures for the first time in the statement of facts filed by the Respondent State on 15/09/2023.

The statement of facts dated 15/09/2023 is insidious to say the least and lays bare the malice of the Respondent State. With the statement of facts dated 15/09/2023, there is only one annexure and that is the order passed by the Respondent No.1 rejecting the Petitioner’s case for regularisation on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the Petitioner, as per his date of birth record with the department, was only fifteen years ten months and seventeen days on the date of his engagement with the Respondents and therefore, he cannot get the benefit of regularisation as per R. 4(a) of SRO 64. Secondly, upon an enquiry carried out by the Respondents from the Board of Secondary Education, it is revealed that the Petitioner was a regular student pursuing education in class Xth and XIIth during the time he was allegedly engaged in casual labour. Thus, the Respondents arrive at the inference that the Petitioner had relied on false and fabricated documents to show that he was working as casual labour with the forest department, and the wages that were paid to him, were on the basis of fraud and fabrication, causing loss to the exchequer, the order of rejection passed by the Respondent No.1 also reveals that a complaint has been made to the police to register an FIR against the Petitioner. It is relevant to mention here that this so-called enquiry was done with extreme haste between 11/09/23, when this Court had insisted on the physical presence of Respondent No.1 as the previous orders passed by this Court were not being complied with, and 18/09/2023 when this Court heard extensive arguments in this case.

The events of 15/09/2023 rips the façade and exposes the true intention of the Respondents. On 11/09/2023, the Respondent No.1 was compelled to appear before us as there was non-compliance with the order dated 21/08/2023. On 11/09/2023, the order sheet reflects that the Ld. Sr. AAG stated at Bar that he wants a last opportunity to comply with the orders passed. Instead of ensuring that the formal order of regularisation of the Petitioner, the Respondents prepared and filed the compliance report, rejecting the plea of the Petitioner. In the chain of communications addressed, a letter dated 15/09/2023 was addressed by the Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Kashmir) [the contemnor No.3 herein] to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests [the contemnor No.2 herein] stating that the Petitioner was not a casual labour of the Department for the period between September 1993 and September 1999 as he was a regular student as per the report of the BOSE and that the Petitioner has forged documents, defrauded the exchequer and claimed wages illegally. Another letter dated 15/09/2023 addressed by the Conservator of Forests to the Contemnor No. 3 stating the same facts as hereinabove. Another letter dated 15/09/2023 addressed by the Divisional Forest Officer to the Conservator of Forests, Kashmir North Circle, disclosing the same facts as hereinabove. Then another letter dated 15/09/2023 addressed by the Contemnor No. 2 to the Contemnor No.1 disclosing the same facts as hereinabove. Thus on 15/09/23, various authorities have written and transmitted the same information to their respective superiors. The findings therein are based on surmises and suspicion, and they go to change the complete texture of the Respondents case which otherwise was in consistent support of the Petitioner’s case.

The documents annexed along with CM 5770/2023 for recall of the three orders passed in this case, are telling. The Respondents proceeded in a manner intending to ensure that the relief claimed by the Petitioner is rejected. To ensure the same, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamraj Forest Division, addresses a letter to the Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as BOSE), seeking verification of secondary school and higher secondary examination certificates of the Petitioner which were in the custody of the Respondents. The letter of BOSE dated 12/09/23, addressed to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamraj Forest Division discloses that the certificates are genuine and that the Petitioner was pursuing education as a regular candidate and passed 10th standard in 1994 and passed class 12th in 1996.On the basis of this letter, the Respondents inferred that the Petitioner could not have been working as a casual labour with the forest department as he was a regular candidate who was prosecuting studies and so the wages drawn by him were fraudulent, causing loss to the state exchequer.

A show cause notice dated 12/09/2023 was issued to Petitioner by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamraj Division, which was received by him on 13/09/23, asking him to explain how he could have been working with the forest department and be studying at the same time as a regular student? The Petitioner replied to the said show cause notice and stated that he worked for the forest department during the night and pursued his studies during the day. He annexed about twenty-five sheets of documents to prove his claim. Though the reply has been made an annexure to CM 5770/23, the documents annexed therewith have not been filed by the state. Those documents have been given to us by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. There is a handwritten engagement of the Petitioner as a casual labour dated 01/09/93. There is a document dated 18/07/2011 addressed by the Chief Conservator of Forests (Central) addressed to the Commissioner/Secretary to the Government, Forest Department relating to the representation of the Petitioner for regularisation of his services. In the said communication, it is clearly mentioned that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour to watch and ward in Kandi Range of Kamraj Forest Division w.e.f 09/1993 and that he has been working continuously in the range as reported by the DFO, Kamraj Forest Division, and that he was paid wages from time to time. The letter further concedes that the case of the Petitioner is covered by SRO 64 of 1994 and that the Petitioner qualifies for regularisation. Copies of the sheets of the register showing regular payments made to the Petitioner is also a part of the documents. The said register has been signed by the Conservator of Forests KMR North Circle, Sopore, the Range Forest Officer and the Divisional Foret Officer of Kamraj Forest Division, Kupwara. Similar is a letter dated 24/01/12 addressed to the Commissioner Secretary to the Government, Forest Department, stating that the Petitioner is in the service of the forest department since 1993. Another letter dated 26/05/2018 addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests by the Chief Conservator of Forests stating that the Petitioner’s case is covered for regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994. It is pertinent to mention here that the order rejecting the regularisation plea of the Petitioner does not doubt the authenticity of any of these documents and yet, the claim of the Petitioner for regularisation has been rejected by the Respondent No.1 only on the basis of the surmise that it was not possible for him to work as watch and ward and also pursue his studies as a regular candidate. It is relevant to mention here that a detailed enquiry was never conducted by the Respondents to arrive at the conclusion that the Petitioner had never worked as watch and ward with the forest department as a casual labour even though there is a preponderance of documents of the Respondents itself which reflect that the Petitioner was in the service of the Respondents as a casual labour (watch and ward) from the year 1993.

The contention of the Ld. Sr. AAG that in contempt proceedings, the court cannot go beyond the original order from which the contempt proceedings arose is the correct position in law and therefore we are not referring to the judgments referred to by the Ld. Sr. AAG on this point. However, the factual aspects of the present case would go to show that the Respondents have themselves always stated before the various courts in various proceedings that SRO 64 applies to the Petitioner and that only formal order was to be passed.

In this regard, we have examined the reply filed by the Respondents in the first contempt petition No. 583/2017 (before the single judge) in which Annexure A is a letter dated 28/04/2018 addressed to the Conservator of Forests, Kashmir North Circle where it is stated “it is further submitted that from perusal of the available records it emerges that Shri Ghulam Nabi Bhat S/o Khazir Mohammad Bhat R/o. Bomai, Sopore has been engaged as casual labour for watch and ward in Kandi forest range of this division w.e.f 09- 1993...”. Another letter annexed to the reply of the Respondents dated 18/07/2011 addressed to the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Forest Department, by the Chief Conservator of Forests (Central) acknowledges that the Petitioner has been working continuously in the Kandi Range in Kamraj Forest Division w.e.f 09/1993 and that his engagement has been supported by cash vouchers and TV statements showing him to be engaged as a casual labour. Similar is the contents of letter dated 24/01/2012 addressed to the Commissioner Secretary to Government, Forest Department from the Addl. Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests (Central). Thus, the peculiar facts of this case reflect that the Respondents have conceded to the fact that the Petitioner was in the engagement of the Respondents and therefore, the contention of the Ld. Sr. AAG is untenable.

The reply/statement of facts of the Respondents in Contempt Case No. 583/2017 (in which the documents mentioned in the previous paragraph are all annexures) have categorically and unequivocally admitted in paragraph 3 that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour for watch and ward in Kandi Forest Range of Kamraj Forest Division w.e.f 09/1993 and has been continuously working and drawing his wages as per rates notified by the Government from time to time. There was nothing more in the case thereafter and the Petitioner ought to have been regularised in the year 2019 itself, but for the senseless intransigence of the Respondents.

As regards the Petitioner not having attained the age of majority and therefore not eligible to be covered under SRO 64 is concerned, the proviso to R. 4(c) provides for relaxation in age. Besides, the Respondents have never taken this plea before any of the courts in this case or the connected contempt matters. This has been raised for the first time in the statement of facts dated 15/09/2023 placing on record the order dated 15/09/23, passed by the contemnor No.1 rejecting the Petitioner’s claim for regularisation. Therefore, the said ground is also untenable.

Thus, where the reply filed by the Respondents in previous connected proceedings and their annexures clearly reflect that the Petitioner was in the engagement of the Respondent since 09/1993 as watch and ward, the order dated 15/09/2023 passed by the contemnor No.1 has been passed in high contempt of the order dated 01/06/2022 in LPA No. 112/2020.

The record of the case reveals that throughout the proceedings of this case and before, the impression given by the state has consistently been that the Petitioner is eligible for regularisation and that he would be regularised once a vacancy arises.

Thus, on the basis of what has been argued before us, considered, and held as hereinabove, the Contemnors are held by us as being guilty of brazen contempt for the order passed by this Court in LPA No.112/2020 dated 01/06/2022. However, if order to give an opportunity to the contemnors to avail the locus poenitentiae and purge themselves of the contempt we give an opportunity to the contemnors to issue the formal order of regularisation of the Petitioner.

List this case on 22/09/23 on top of the list for compliance and further orders, if need be.