Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Sabiya Salam & Anr vs Sanjeev Verma & Anr on 23 December, 2021
Serial No. 42
Supplementary-2 Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CCP (S) No. 364/2021 in
SWP No. 1756/2016
Sabiya Salam & Anr.
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr S. R. Hussain, Advocate.
V/s
Sanjeev Verma & Anr.
... Respondent(s)
Through: -
Ms Asifa Padroo, AAG.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge
Hon'ble Mr Justice Mohd. Akram Chowdhary, Judge
(ORDER)
23.12.2021
Magrey, J (Oral):
By this Contempt Petition, the Petitioners allege violation of
Judgment dated 21st of May, 2019 passed in LPA No.124/2019 read with
Judgment dated 22nd of November, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge
in SWP No.1756/2016.
The case of the Petitioners is that they filed a Writ Petition
against the rejection of their claim made by the Respondents seeking
compassionate appointment in favour of Petitioner No.1 on the death in
harness of the deceased, namely, Abdul Salam Bhat, father of Petitioner No.1;
and husband of Petitioner No.2, who was working as a Driver in the
Respondent Department. The said Writ Petition, vide Judgment dated 22 nd of
November, 2017, came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge with a
direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner No.1 for
appointment on compassionate basis. This Judgment of the learned Single
Judge was, thereafter, assailed by the Respondents in appeal bearing LPA
No.124/2019 which came to be dismissed vide Judgment dated 21 st of May,
2019, thereby upholding the Judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Consequently, the Petitioners have filed the instant Contempt Petition alleging
violation of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd of November,
2017 as well as the Judgment dated 21st of May, 2019 passed in LPA
No.124/2019.
On notice having been issued, the Respondents have filed the
Statement of Facts
, wherein they have enclosed the copy of Government
Order bearing No.236-FST of 2019 dated 1st of August, 2019 issued by the
Commissioner/ Secretary to Government, Forest, Ecology & Environment
Department, in terms whereof the claim of the Petitioners appears to have
been examined in the light of the aforesaid two Judgments and, accordingly,
rejected being devoid of merit.
In the light of the above position obtaining in the matter, we are
of the view that there is, now, hardly any scope left for this Court to intervene
in the matter inasmuch the Respondents have considered the claim of the
Petitioners and rejected the same in terms of the Government Order dated 1 st
of August, 2019. The mandate of the Judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge, as upheld by the Division Bench in appeal, was to accord consideration
to the claim of the Petitioner No.1 for her compassionate appointment which
the Respondents have considered, wherein same has been found devoid of any
merit. It is quite clear that the learned Single Judge had left the matter for
consideration of the claim of the Petitioner No.1 for compassionate
appointment completely at the discretion of the Respondents. In these
circumstances and given the fact that in the instant Contempt proceedings we
are only supposed to ensure implementation of the Judgment passed by the
Court, we cannot go into the veracity/ legality of the consideration Order
issued by the Respondents rejecting the claim of the Petitioners. It is settled
legal position that in a Contempt proceeding, the Court has to only ensure
implementation of the direction(s) of which disobedience/ violation is alleged
and, in the instant case, by issuing the consideration Order dated 1st of August,
2019, the Respondents have complied with the direction passed by the Court
which was only to accord consideration to the claim of the Petitioner No.1 for
compassionate appointment.
While making submissions to impress upon the Court that the
consideration Order issued by the Respondents is neither in accordance with
law nor in tune with the mandate of the Judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge, as upheld by the Division Bench in appeal, Mr S. R. Hussain, the
learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has referred to certain Judgments,
however, this contention, if gone into, would amount to touching upon the
merits of the case which, in a Contempt proceeding, is unwarranted. It is, at
the cost of repetition, reiterated here that all that a Court has to see in a
Contempt Petition is whether the direction(s), subject matter of the said
proceeding, is/ are complied with or not. In the present case, the Respondents
were directed to consider the claim of the Petitioner No.1 for her
compassionate appointment which they have done by issuing the
consideration Order dated 1st of August, 2019.
Mr Hussain also contended before us that the learned Single
Judge has made a declaration to the effect that the Petitioner No.1, a married
daughter, is also entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds by
including the 'daughter' in the word 'family'. Perusal of the Judgment of the
learned Single Judge, as upheld by the Division Bench, however, brings it to
the fore that while the learned Single Judge has made a discussion with regard
to the scheme of the rules qua the benefit of compassionate appointment
available to the family member of the deceased employee who dies in harness,
but, at the same time, the learned Single Judge has not declared the married
daughter dependent on the deceased which could have formed the basis for
the Petitioner No.1 to claim the benefit of appointment on compassionate
grounds. Therefore, this contention of the learned Counsel is factually
incorrect and legally unsustainable.
In the above background, we are satisfied with the Compliance
reported by the Respondents qua implementation of the Judgment dated 22nd
of November, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, as upheld by the
Division in appeal vide Judgment dated 21st of May, 2019, and, therefore, we
see no reason to proceed any further in the instant Contempt Petition.
Accordingly, this Contempt Petition shall stand closed as settled. The
Petitioners, however, shall be at liberty to work out their remedy as may be
available to them qua the aforesaid Order dated 1st of August, 2019 issued by
the Respondents.
Contempt Petition disposed of as above.
(Mohd. Akram Chowdhary) (Ali Mohammad Magrey)
Judge Judge
SRINAGAR
December 23rd, 2021
"TAHIR"
TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT
2021.12.27 15:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
