Balvinder Kumar And Others vs R. K. Goel
2021 Latest Caselaw 247 j&K

                                                                S. Nos. 206
            HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                          AT JAMMU

                                               CM No. 6700/2019 in
                                               CPSW No. 138/2017

Balvinder Kumar and others                                      ...Petitioner(s)

                 Through :- Mr. Raghubir Singh, Advocate
                v/s
                 <




R. K. Goel, Secy. Home and others
't
                                                       .....Respondent(s)

                Through :- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG


Coram:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

                                    ORDER

1. This is a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against

the respondents for their willful disobedience and non-compliance of the

order/judgment dated 03.02.2016 passed in SWP No. 115/2016 titled 'Balvinder

Kumar and others Vs. UOI and others'. The operative portion of the

order/judgment reads as under:

"Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in SWP No. 1257/2002 titled 'Suman Sharma and others v. State and others' decided on 11.12.2015, provided the same is applicable to the case of the petitioners. Let consideration be accorded, strictly under rules, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order and judgment aforementioned are made available to the respondents by the petitioners."

2. On being put on notice, respondent Nos. 3 & 4, have entered

appearance and have filed compliance report. The respondents have also placed

on record a copy of Order No. 288 of 2017 dated 12.05.2017 passed by the

Additional Director General of Police, HG/CD & SDRF J&K, Srinagar, whereby

the case of the petitioners for regularization has been considered and rejected

being devoid of merits. There is another compliance report filed by the

respondents wherein they have placed on record a copy of the Government Order

No. 586-Home of 2018 dated 26.04.2018 whereby the Honorarium, which was

earlier Rs. 60/- per day, has been enhanced to Rs. 300/- per day, in favour of

4300 Home Guards with immediate effect.

3. In view of the compliance reports filed by the respondents and the

aforesaid orders placed on record, no case for initiating contempt proceedings

against the respondents is made out and the proceedings are, accordingly, closed.

It shall, however, remain open for the petitioners to challenge the consideration

order, if the petitioners still feel aggrieved of, in accordance with law.

(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JAMMU 05.03.2021 Shivalee Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No