UT of J&K and ors vs Parvez Ahmed

Shahzad Azeem, J

This Intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in CCP(S) No. 18/2021, whereby application filed by the contemnors/respondents bearing CM No. 7369/2024 seeking dismissal of the contempt petition on the ground that same is barred by limitation, has been rejected along with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

Respondent herein along with other co-workers filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 2728/2015 titled Parvez Ahmed and ors. Vs. State of J&K and ors seeking regularization of their services on the analogy of other similarly situated daily rated workers who have been regularized however, the writ Court vide order dated 05.10.2025 disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to accord consideration to their cases and take a decision thereon and pass appropriate orders in accordance with rules.

The order dated 05.10.2015 passed by the writ Court was not complied by the respondents-State, therefore, respondent herein, has filed a petition on 05.02.2021, for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents.

During the pendency of the contempt petition, the contemnors/respondents have filed an application bearing CM No. 7369/2024, precisely on 18.12.2024 questioning the maintainability of the contempt petition in terms of J&K Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 (the Act). The plea of the applicants-contemnors precisely was that the contempt petition came to be filed beyond the limitation period of one year, therefore, same is hit by Section 20 of the Act.

The writ Court vide impugned order dated 07.05.2025 considered the application, and had come to the conclusion that the department remained continuously exchanging the communications inter se and lastly, Chief Engineer, had submitted a report vide letter dated 23.01.2021 to the Principal Secretary to Government, PWD (R&B) Department, Jammu and upon failure of the contemnors/respondents for taking further action towards implementation of the order dated 05.10.2015, the contempt petition came to be instituted on 05.02.2021, therefore, on this factual aspect, the writ Court had returned a finding that the contempt petition came to be filed within the limitation period, thus, same held to be maintainable.

The main ground of challenge to the impugned order as well as plank of argument is that the contempt petition came to be filed after the gap of 05 years, therefore, in view of the settled proposition of law, the contempt petition is hit by Section 20 of the Act which provides the period of limitation for filing contempt petition as one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Although the appellants have given the factual details also in the memo of appeal as well as heavily placed reliance on plethora of judgments to support the plea of limitation, but for the reasons shortly stated, we do not deem it proper to take note of each and every such detail.

While going through the daily orders of the Court file, we have noticed that when the contempt petition had come up before the Court on 10.02.2021, the counsel appearing for the petitioners was granted time to produce the judgment regarding delay in filing the contempt petition, however, on the next date, when the matter had come up i.e. on 19.02.2021, the notice was issued to the contemnors/respondents. Although in the order dated 19.02.2021, no mention regarding delay in filing of contempt petition find mention but it appears that only after drawing satisfaction, the respondents/contemnors were put to notice. It is further seen that the respondents/contemnors have filed twice the compliance report but the writ Court on both the occasions observed that the compliance is not in consonance with the order passed by the writ Court, therefore, they were asked to file fresh response. Despite the direction to the respondents to file fresh response, but on noticing the non-compliance, the Court vide order dated 12.12.2024 directed the Registry to secure presence of Commissioner/Secretary to Government, PWD(R&B) through bailable warrants, however, thereafter i.e on 18.12.2024, the contemnors/respondents have filed the application questioning the maintainability of the contempt petition on the ground that same is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Act, which came to be dismissed vide impugned order under challenge.

There are certain disturbing facts that needs to be noticed, as it will give a glimpse of travesty of justice, in that, despite an order dated 27.07.2017 passed by Chief Engineer PWD (R&B) Department, Jammu, making it sound and clear that the respondent herein along with some other daily rated workers have rendered continuous 07 years service since their engagement and are still working as DRWs till date and they fulfil all the conditions as laid down in the SRO 64 of 1994 which provides for regularization of such daily rated workers, coupled with the fact that history sheet which is part of record shows that the respondent came to be engaged as daily wager on 13.08.1993 and is continuously performing his duties as such, but the contemnors/respondents have all along on flimsy and unfounded grounds rejected the claim which obviously the contempt Court did not accept and in this background directed the contemnors/respondents therein to file fresh compliance report in consonance with the order passed by the writ Court. However, instead of showing compliance, in its true spirit, the contemnors/respondents had taken refuge under the hyper technical ground of limitation which came to be rejected on facts.

Since the order sought to be implemented by way of contempt petition came to be passed by the writ Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the contemnors/respondents cannot take refuge under the hyper technical ground of limitation particularly, when hundreds of similarly situated persons have been regularized. What else can be the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances could justify the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution, particularly when the respondent herein has been subjected to discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis similarly placed co-workers, thereby necessitating to do the complete justice.

We are fortified in our view by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian and ors; (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 549, which has been also relied by the appellants. Paragraph No. 30 reads thus:-

“There can be no doubt that both this Court and High Courts are Courts of Record and the Constitution has given them the powers to punish for contempt. The decisions of this Court clearly show that this power cannot be abrogated or stultified. But if the power under Article 129 and Article 215 is absolute can there be any legislation indicating the manner and to the extent that the power can be exercised? If there is any provision of the law which stultifies or abrogates the power under Article 129 and/or Article 215 there can be  little  doubt  that  such  law  would  not  be   regarded  as  having  been  validly  enacted.  It, however, appears  to us that providing for the quantum of punishment or what may or may not be  regarded  as  acts  of  contempt  or  even providing for a period of limitation for initiating proceedings for contempt cannot be taken to be a provision  which  abrogates  or  stultifies  the contempt jurisdiction under Article 129 or Article 215 of the Constitution.”

Now, coming back to the case on hand, there is ample material to show that the respondent herein is performing his duties as daily rated worker since 1993 and after putting decades of his service as such, the contemnors/respondents are denying the right of regularization when similarly situated persons have been regularized, which action of the contemnors/respondents flies in the face of recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Jaggo Vs. Union of India and ors reported as, 2024 SCC Online 3826, therefore, it appears that the compliance filed by the respondents/contemnors, was not found to be in consonance with the order passed by the writ Court and they were directed to file the fresh compliance.

What else can be the classic example of gross injustice, than the discrimination meted out to the respondent herein, viz-a-viz. his counterparts, therefore, under these exceptional circumstances and in order to do the complete justice, the exercise of power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India comes into play and thus, rightly seems to have been exercised by the writ Court being Court of record and armed with the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the actions which amounts to the contempt of the Court.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the writ Court while passing the order under challenge, therefore, present appeal being bereft of any merit, same is, accordingly, dismissed.