Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Abdul Rahman Khanday & Ors vs Mr. Bipal Pathak ... on 16 February, 2022
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
Serial No. 15
Regular List.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)
CPSW No. 12/2010
IA No. 01/2015
CM No. 3313/2020.
Abdul Rahman Khanday & Ors. ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Mr. M. I. Qadiri, Sr. Adv.
With Mr. Naveed Gul, Advocate.
Vs.
Mr. Bipal Pathak Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Rural Dev. Dept & Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG. CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, Judge
(Through Video Conferencing from Jammu wing of the High Court) (ORDER) 16.02.2022
1. The instant contempt petition has arisen out of order dated 03.05.2007 passed in SWP No.877/2006, which had been disposed of in the following manner:
"Accordingly, the petition is admitted and disposed of with a direction to respondents to initiate further lawful follow up action in petitioners case purporting to have been submitted on 08.04.2004 for consideration of their representation on their own merit and in accordance with SRO 64 of 1994. While doing so due regard be had to order No.84-DRD of 2006 dated 24.03.2006 whereunder similarly placed daily wagers have reportedly been given benefit of SRO 64 of 1994. Consideration as such be accorded within three months from now preferably after hearing petitioners."
2. The instant contempt petition has been filed on 9th February, 2010, after initial contempt petitions bearing No.387/2007 and 434/2007 came to beconsidered and disposed of in terms of order dated 4 th August, 2009, which provided as under:
"In the interest of justice, further opportunity is given to respondents to comply with and to implement the judgment of this court (supra) within a period of two months positively from the date copy of this -2- order is served on them. It is provided that in case the order is not complied with, within the aforesaid period, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the court again to seek redressal of their lawful grievance. Registry to provide copy of this order to Mr. Beigh, for compliance thereof."
3. As has been noticed in the preceding paras, in terms of initial order/judgment dated 3rd May, 2007, the respondents were required to accord benefit of SRO 64 of 1994 within three months' time, preferably after hearing the petitioners. The timeframe provided in the said order, admittedly, has been extended upon consideration and disposal of the contempt petitions (supra) in terms of order dated 4th August, 2009, extending the stipulated period by another two months.
4. The record tends to show that respondents ironically have delayed the consideration of the case of the petitioners. The record reveals that the first status report had been filed by the respondents in the year 2010 followed by two statements of facts respectively filed in the year 2015 and 2016. The latest compliance report is filed on 5th of March, 2021, wherein petitioners have not been found eligible for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.
5. The record of the statement of facts filed by the respondents nowhere reveals that the respondents have considered the cases of the petitioners on the lines on which similarly situated daily wagers were reported to have been given the benefit of SRO 64 of 1994, as provided by this Court in terms of order dated 3rd May, 2007 while disposing of the petition. So much so, the statements of facts (supra) do not spell out anywhere that the respondents have provided a hearing to the petitioners as well. The statements of facts in general and the statement of factsof 2021in particular, in this view of the matter, is -3- incomplete and requires to be augmented/supplemented by the respondents No.1 by filing a detailed affidavit.
6. Although the Court is reluctant to provide another opportunity to the respondents for supplementing the statement of facts in view of the writ large delay caused by them in complying with the orders passed by this Court, yet the Court, while expressing its displeasure on the working of the respondents as officers of the Government, grants two weeks' time for supplementing the statement of facts filed in the year 2021. Should the respondent No.1 failed to file the supplementary statement of facts within the time stipulated above, the respondent No.1 shall remain personally present before the Court on the next date of hearing.
7. Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG, appearing for the respondents is directed that the record pertaining to the case of petitioners as well as those daily wagers who had been regularized earlier to the petitioners similarly situated with them, shall also be kept available on the next date.
8. List again on 10.03.2022.
(Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge Srinagar 16.02.2022 "Bhat Altaf PS"