Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Dilshada Akhter vs Biswajeet Kumar Singh & Ors on 1 March, 2023
Author: Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Bench: Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Sr. No. 11
Regular Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CPSW No. 588/2014
Dilshada Akhter ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. M. A. Qayoom, Adv.
Vs.
Biswajeet Kumar Singh & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG with Ms Maha Majeed, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
01.03.2023
1. As per the compliance report filed by the respondents, it is apparent that the respondents have passed the order of regularization of the petitioner, but have given effect to the regularization only from 24 th September 2016 which is in derogation to the mandate and spirit of the order/judgment dated 25th April 2014.
2. This Court vide order dated 18th November 2021 has directed the respondents to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders or corrigendum so as to give effect to the regularization of the petitioner at least from 15th December 2006 when the judgment passed in SWP No. 2913/1993 and SWP No. 474/1990 was passed.
3. Confronted with the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the respondents was granted four weeks further time to come up with the complete compliance of the orders passed by this Court.
4. Fresh compliance report has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which a specific stand has been taken by the respondents that the judgment has been complied with in its letter and spirit to the extent of regularization of her services. A specific stand has been taken by the respondents that since there was no direction from the court to accord retrospective effect to the regularization of the petitioner and, as such, the claim of the petitioner vis-à-vis release of arrears from the date of her engagement till regularization is not genuine and cannot be CPSW No. 588/2014 Page 1 of 4 acceded to. The respondents have further pleaded in para 13 of the aforesaid statement of facts that the judgment which is sought to be complied with, there is no order of regularization from a particular date and this is precisely the reason that the petitioner has been regularized from prospective date and thus the judgment has been complied with in its letter and spirit as per the stand of the respondents.
5. The respondents have further pleaded that in case if the petitioner is aggrieved of not granting retrospective effect to the regularization of her service, she ought to have challenged the said order before the competent forum which till date has not been done and in absence of that, the contempt court cannot enlarge the scope of the judgment which has already been passed by the court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. This Court vide order dated 18th November 2021 in the aforesaid contempt petition has already directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with a view to give effect to the regularization of the petitioner at least from 15 th December 2006 when the judgment in SWP No. 2913/1993 and SWP No. 474/1990 was passed and as a consequence of which, learned counsel for the respondents was granted four weeks time to come up with the complete compliance of the order passed by this Court. The respondents instead of complying the aforesaid order has again taken a stand in the fresh compliance report which has already been rejected by this Court.
8. A stand taken by respondents in the fresh compliance report is not in tune with the judgment passed by this court in SWP No. 2913/1993 and SWP No. 474/1990. Another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of that the order dated 15th December 2006 has not been appealed against and the said judgment is binding on the respondents and the respondents, as such, are bound to implement the same. Even the Division Bench of this court while disposing of LPA No. 189/2014 vide order dated 2nd September 2015 has been pleased to observe as under:-
"It is not in dispute that order dated 15.12.2006 has not been appealed against. The said judgment is binding on CPSW No. 588/2014 Page 2 of 4 the appellants and the appellants are bound to implement the same. In such view of the matter, we are unable to find any reason to condone the delay and entertain the appeal. The application, therefore, is dismissed and consequently the appeal is also dismissed"
9. It is not so, even the said judgment passed by the Division Bench was assailed by the respondents before the Apex Court by filing SLP which also stood dismissed by virtue of order dated 4 th April 2016 meaning thereby, that the order passed by this court dated 15th December 2006 was upheld.
10. The finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 189/2014 was binding on the respondents and the respondents are bound to implement the same which has been upheld by the Supreme Court and as a consequence of which, respondents have no other option but to implement the judgment passed by this court dated 15 th December 2006 in its letter and spirit.
11. The statement of facts and the stand taken by the respondents is in derogation to the mandate and spirit of the judgment passed by this Court dated 15th December 2006 upheld by the Apex Court.
12. The order/judgment which is sought to be complied with in the contempt petition is explicitly clear and the writ petition was allowed by directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of order passed by this court on 15th December 2006 in SWP No. 2913/1993 and SWP No. 474/1990 and the judgment passed on 25th April 2014, till date has not been complied with in its letter and spirit.
13. The respondents have prima facie committed contempt of court as they have flouted the orders passed by this court with impunity and they are in recurring contempt.
14. Before proceeding further in the matter, last and final opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the respondents to comply with the order/judgment passed by this Court dated 25th April 2014 in its letter and spirit strictly in conformity with the direction passed by Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 189/2014 dated 2nd September 2015 upheld by the Supreme Court vide order dated 4 th April 2016, failing which respondent No. 1 shall appear in person.
CPSW No. 588/2014 Page 3 of 415. List on 17th March 2023.
16. Registry to supply a copy of this order to Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, learned Sr. AAG for compliance.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE SRINAGAR:
01.03.2023 Altaf CPSW No. 588/2014 Page 4 of 4