Rakesh Kumar And Ors vs Pawan Kotwal And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1718 j&K

                                            Sr. No. 11
      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU

                                                         CPSW No. 472/2018
                                                          CM No. 7293/2020

Rakesh Kumar and ors.                              .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                          Through:-   None.

                    V/s

Pawan Kotwal and ors.                                       .....Respondent(s)

                          Through:-   Mr. H.A. Siddiqui, Sr. AAG.

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
                                   ORDER

01. Proceedings in this contempt petition have been initiated by the

petitioners for non-compliance of judgment and order dated 04.12.2017

passed in SWP No. 1992/2016 titled 'Rakesh Kumar & Ors vs. State and

others.' which was disposed of with the following directions:-

"In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners for counting the services rendered by them on adhoc / contractual / consolidated / stop gap arrangement basis prior to their regularization, on notional basis, in terms of the rules applicable as also on the analogy of order passed in SWP No. 1981/2015 by passing a speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed today".

02. The respondents in their compliance report submit that in

compliance to the order of this Court they have considered and decided

the claim of the petitioners by passing a speaking order dated 12.03.2019

and the same was found to be devoid of any merit and was rejected.

03. In view of the aforesaid, order of this Court dated 04.12.2017

stands complied. Proceedings in this contempt petition are, accordingly,

closed.

04. The petitioners are, however, at liberty to assail the said order,

if cause survives.

(Sindhu Sharma) Judge JAMMU 21.12.2021 MICHAL