Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Balvinder Kumar And Others vs < on 5 March, 2021
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
S. Nos. 206
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
CM No. 6700/2019 in
CPSW No. 138/2017
Balvinder Kumar and others ...Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Raghubir Singh, Advocate
v/s
<
R. K. Goel, Secy. Home and others
't
.....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
ORDER
1. This is a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their willful disobedience and non-compliance of the order/judgment dated 03.02.2016 passed in SWP No. 115/2016 titled 'Balvinder Kumar and others Vs. UOI and others'. The operative portion of the order/judgment reads as under:
"Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in SWP No. 1257/2002 titled 'Suman Sharma and others v. State and others' decided on 11.12.2015, provided the same is applicable to the case of the petitioners. Let consideration be accorded, strictly under rules, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order and judgment aforementioned are made available to the respondents by the petitioners."
2. On being put on notice, respondent Nos. 3 & 4, have entered appearance and have filed compliance report. The respondents have also placed on record a copy of Order No. 288 of 2017 dated 12.05.2017 passed by the 2 CPSW No. 138/2017 Additional Director General of Police, HG/CD & SDRF J&K, Srinagar, whereby the case of the petitioners for regularization has been considered and rejected being devoid of merits. There is another compliance report filed by the respondents wherein they have placed on record a copy of the Government Order No. 586-Home of 2018 dated 26.04.2018 whereby the Honorarium, which was earlier Rs. 60/- per day, has been enhanced to Rs. 300/- per day, in favour of 4300 Home Guards with immediate effect.
3. In view of the compliance reports filed by the respondents and the aforesaid orders placed on record, no case for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents is made out and the proceedings are, accordingly, closed. It shall, however, remain open for the petitioners to challenge the consideration order, if the petitioners still feel aggrieved of, in accordance with law.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JAMMU 05.03.2021 Shivalee Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No