Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Robkar vs Sanjeev Verma on 18 March, 2025
S.No. 94
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No. :- ROBSW No. 7/2024 In
[CPSW 540/2018]
c/w
CPSW No. 540/2018
Robkar .....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Achal Sharma, Advocate
(CPSW No. 540/2018)
Vs
Sanjeev Verma ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
18.03.2025
1. The record reveals that Mr. M. Raju, Commissioner Secretary to General Administration Department (GAD) vide order dated 04.03.2025 was substituted as respondent No. 1 in place of Mr.Sanjeev Verma and Registry was directed to update the index accordingly. An application was also preferred on behalf of respondent No. 1/contemnor seeking exemption from his personal appearance before the Court on 04.03.2025 and for the reasons stated in the aforesaid application, personal appearance of respondent No.1 was exempted on 04.03.2025. By virtue of the aforesaid order, five days' time was granted to the respondent to file compliance report, failing which respondent No. 1 was directed to remain present in person before the Court on the date fixed and the matter was directed to be listed on 10.03.2025. On which date also, the needful was not done and further one day's time was granted for the same.
2 ROBSW 7/2024
2. Pursuant thereto, the detail compliance report has also been filed on behalf of the newly added respondent, in terms of order dated 12.03.2025, in which, the respondent has taken a specific stand that the order/judgment which is sought to be complied with has been complied with and a detailed consideration order dated 12.03.2025 vide Govt. Order No. 360-JKGAD of 2025 has been passed which has been placed on record along with the detail compliance report. A perusal thereof reveals that Government Order No. 1269-GAD of 2016 dated 21.11.2016, by virtue of which, petitioner was retired prematurely in terms of Article 226 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956 stands rescinded ab initio. While passing the aforesaid order, it has also been ordered that:-
i) This order shall be subject to the outcome of the pending SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
ii) The official shall submit his joining report to his Administrative Department i.e Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs.
iii) The official shall be entitled to payment of salary and other service benefits to which he would have been entitled to in the absence of Government Order No. 1269-GAD of 2016 dated 21.11.2016.
iv) The release of consequential benefits shall depend upon the outcome of the pending criminal trial/departmental proceeding or court case, if any.
v) The suspension/intervening period of suspension of the official shall be decided by the Administrative Department (FCS & CA).
vi) The payment of salary upon settlement of suspension period shall be subject to the deduction of three (03) month's salary and other allowances paid to him at 3 ROBSW 7/2024 the time of premature retirement in lieu of notices as envisaged under Article 226(2) of J&K CSRs.
vii) The official shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period from 21.11.2016 (date of premature retirement) till date.
3. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the order/judgment which is sought to be complied with has not been complied with in toto as the respondent has not released the consequential benefits as directed by the learned writ Court in SWP No. 2666/2016 dated 02.07.2018, which has been upheld the Division Bench of this Court LPASW No. 207/2018 dated 26.09.2023.
4. He further submits that the respondent while passing the aforesaid order of consideration, although, has rescinded the order of premature retirement of the petitioner, dated 21.11.2016 and has reinstated the petitioner, but insofar as the consequential benefits are concerned, the same have not been released inconformity with the order/judgment passed by the learned Writ Court, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and even SLP which has been preferred by the respondent, only the delay has been condoned and there is no order staying contempt proceeding as on date.
5. Confronted with the same, Mrs. Kohli learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent seeks three weeks' further time to come up with the final compliance of the order/judgment passed 4 ROBSW 7/2024 by the learned Writ Court insofar as the release of the consequential benefits are concerned.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with particular reference to the order which has been passed by the respondent mentioned supra.
7. From a bare perusal of the order of consideration, it is apparent that although, the premature retirement of the petitioner has been rescinded ab initio vide Government Order No. 360-JKGAD of 2025 dated 12.03.2025, yet, the respondent while passing the aforesaid order has imposed certain conditions with particular reference to Clause-IV of aforesaid writ Court order, wherein it has been mentioned that the release of the consequential benefits shall depend upon the outcome of pending criminal trial/departmental proceeding or the court case, if any. The imposition of the aforesaid condition for the release of the consequential benefits is in derogation to the mandate and spirit of the learned Writ Court order and will tantamount to saying something over and above the aforesaid order.
8. The respondent by no stretch of imagination can enlarge the scope of the Writ Court order by imposing such condition which is not the mandate of the aforesaid order, as the order is explicitly clear where the premature retirement of the petitioner has been quashed and as a necessary corollary the petitioner has been held entitled to consequential benefits. No such rider has been imposed 5 ROBSW 7/2024 by the learned Writ Court that the consequential benefits shall depend upon the outcome of pending criminal trial/departmental proceeding or the Court case, if any, and the imposition of such condition by the respondent/contemnor while passing the aforesaid order would prima facie be contemptuous and would tantamount to enlarging the scope of the Writ Court order as the same will be in derogation to the mandate and spirit of the aforesaid order.
9. Confronted with the same, Mrs. Kohli fairly submits that she be given three weeks' further time to come up with the final compliance of the aforesaid order insofar as the release of consequential benefits are concerned. At this stage, Mrs. Kohli submits that since the respondent have already preferred SLP against the learned Writ Court order which has culminated into the order passed by the Division Bench, in which, the delay has already been condoned and there is every likelihood that the SLP will be considered on merits shortly and in case, the SLP is decided in favour of the respondent, then in that eventuality, it will be very difficult to recover the said amount, in case, if the direction to the extent of release of consequential benefits is implemented. She further submits that let the petitioner file an undertaking in this regard and subject to filing of said undertaking that, in case, if the decision goes against the petitioner, then in that eventuality, the consequential benefits 6 ROBSW 7/2024 which will be released in his favour, will be returned back to the respondent.
10. Although, no such condition has been imposed by the learned Writ Court while passing the aforesaid order/judgment, yet with a view to do complete justice to both the parties at this stage, this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, direct the petitioner to file an undertaking before the Chief Secretary of Union Territory of J&K within one week from today that, in case, if the decision of the SLP goes against the petitioner, then in that eventuality, the amount which is likely to be released in his favour by way of consequential benefits, will be return back to the respondent.
11. Subject to the filing of the said undertaking within aforesaid period, the respondent is directed to comply with the learned Writ Court order dated 02.07.2018, insofar as the direction to the extent of releasing the consequential benefits is concerned, in its letter and spirit within a period of two weeks from today.
12. It is made clear that, in case, the aforesaid direction is not complied with by the respondent/contemnor, the Court will be constraint to proceed further in the instant contempt petition and the Robkar framed arising out of the said contempt petition. However, the proceedings in the instant Robkar are deferred for the time being, only for a period of two weeks, in the light of the assurance extended by learned counsel for the respondent, in 7 ROBSW 7/2024 presence of the Commissioner Secretary to GAD, who is also present, that the order/judgment of the learned Writ Court shall be implemented within two weeks in its letter and spirit.
13. The presence of the Commissioner Secretary to GAD is dispensed with for the time being. However, it is made clear that in case the order/judgment is not complied with on or before the next date of hearing, then Mr. M. Raju, Commissioner Secretary to GAD shall remain present on the next date of hearing.
14. List this matter on 09.04.2025.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal) Judge JAMMU 18.03.2025 Vijay Vijay Kumar 2025.03.18 23:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document