Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu

Rehmat Ali vs Mr Sanjeev Verma, Ias Forest Dept And Ors on 18 February, 2026

                                                              :: 1 ::

                                     Central Administrative Tribunal
                                        Jammu Bench, Jammu

                                   Hearing through video conferencing

                             Contempt Application No. 61/41/2022
                                         Arising out of
                           Transferred Application No. 61/2590/2020

                                   This the 18th day of February, 2026

                           Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member
                    Hon'ble Ms. Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative Member

               1.     Rehmat Ali
                                                                         ...Petitioner
               (Through Advocate: Nitin Bhasin)

                                                 Versus

               1.    Mr. Sanjeev Verma, IAS, Forest Department and others
                                                                   ..Respondents
               (Through Advocate: Mr. Sudesh Magotra, A.A.G.)




      ARUN
      KUMAR
ARUN
      2026.03.05
KUMAR
      15:10:02+
      05'30'
                                                                    :: 2 ::


                                           ORDER

(Per:- Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member) Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the name of the petitioner as per statement of fact, placed on record by the respondents, was not considered for regularization, as he was found ineligible, as per provisions of SRO 64 of 1994 having been engaged as a Casual Labour.

2. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner after his engagement with the respondents department is continuously working and are performing his duties, but was wrongly denied the benefits of regularization under SRO 64 of 1994.

3. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of aforesaid stand of the respondents, the Contempt Petition may be closed with liberty to file a fresh Original Application seeking proper relief for regularization of petitioner's services in terms of SRO 64 of 1994

4. In view of the above, this Contempt Petition is closed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh O.A. seeking proper relief for regularization of his services in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.

5. Rule of the Court stands discharged.

(Pragya Sahay Saksena) (Sanjeev Gupta) Administrative Member Judicial Member Arun...

ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.05 KUMAR 15:10:02+ 05'30'