Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sudesh Kumar Raina vs Inderjeet Singh Director Agriculture ... on 5 August, 2022
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
Sr.No.120
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CCP (S) No.1/2021
CM No.117/2021
CM No. 4595/2022
CM No. 4674/2022
Sudesh Kumar Raina ..... Petitioner(s)
Through: None.
Vs
Inderjeet Singh Director Agriculture Gole ..... Respondents(s)
Pulli Jammu.
Through: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
05.08.2022
1. Respondent/ contemnor, Mr. K.K. Sharma, Director, Agriculture, Jammu, is present in person.
2. In the instant contempt petition, violation of judgment dated 23.07.2019 is alleged whereunder while allowing the petition of the petitioner, impugned communication dated 25.02.2014, issued by respondent No. 1 was quashed and respondents were directed to settle the medical reimbursement case of the petitioner within a period of four months and disbursed him the claim along with interest @ 6% per annum to be paid w.e.f., 25.02.2014 till its actual payment to the petitioner.
3. Record reveals that the contempt petition came to be instituted on 01.01.2021. The respondent /contemnor in response to the contempt petition filed statement of facts, wherein it is being stated that in compliance to the 2 CCP (S) No. 1/2021 judgment dated 23.07.2019, the answering respondent examined the case of the petitioner at administrative level and thereafter, matter was taken up with the Finance Department.
4. It is further stated in the statement of facts that the Finance Department returned the case vide their U.O No. a/56/2008-II535/J/50 dated 21.08.2020 and conveyed its concurrence to the reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner on the treatment of his son in relaxation of Rule 6 (1) of J&K Civil Service ( medical attendance cum - allowance) Rules, 1990, but advised to contest the case regarding the payment of interest in consultation with the Law Department for there being no provision for payment of interest in the rules.
5. It is being further stated that the matter was taken up further with the Law Department, which vide their U.O No. LD (Lit) 2020/14-Agri (Jmu) dated 26.11.2020, advised to file LPA against the judgment dated 23.07.2019.
6. According to Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG, appearing counsel for the respondent/contemnor, LPA came to be filed on 08.01.2021.
7. Mr. Bharti, Dy. AG would further state that there is no stay granted by the Division Bench in the said LPA.
8. What emerges from the aforesaid facts and circumstances is that even the Finance Department accorded its concurrence to the reimbursement of the medical claim of the petitioner in compliance to judgment dated 23.07.2019 and advised the respondent/contemnor herein to contest the case in consultation with Law Department qua interest alone. 3 CCP (S) No. 1/2021
9. Record reveals that the respondent/contemnor despite the aforesaid concurrence accorded by the Finance Department has failed without any lawful justification to reimburse the medical claim of the petitioner in compliance to the judgment dated 23.07.2019 minus the interest part.
10. No explanation worth the name has been offered for non- reimbursement of the medical claim to the petitioner by the respondent/ contemnor in the statement of facts.
11. The non-compliance of the judgment by the respondent/contemnor is, seemingly, deliberate and intentional and, prima facie, a manifest contempt is committed by respondent/ contemnor warrants framing of the rule against the respondent/ contemnor. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to frame rule against respondent/ contemnor to show cause as to why he shall not be punished for violating the Court judgment dated 23.07.2019.
12. List on 30.08.2022.
13. Registry to forthwith serve the copy of the rule and copy of this order to respondent/contemnor.
(Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge Jammu 05.08.2022 Renu RENU BALA 2022.08.16 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document