Union Territory Of J&K And Others vs Dilshada Akhter
2023 Latest Caselaw 953 j&K/2

                                                              Sr. No. 23
                                                              Regular List
   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT SRINAGAR
                             CM No. 3116/2023 in
                              LPA No. 94/2023

Union Territory of J&K and others                     ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

Through:      Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA

                                        Vs.
Dilshada Akhter                                                 ...Respondent(s)

Through:      Mr. M.A. Qayoom, Adv. with
              Mr. M. Muzaffar, Adv.
CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
                                 ORDER

16.08.2023

CM NO. 3116/2023

Objections to the application for condonation of delay have been

filed.

The application, for the reasons stated therein, is allowed and

delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM disposed of.

LPA No. 94/2023

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal is

admitted and taken up for final consideration.

2. Impugned in this appeal is order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the

learned Single Judge in exercise of contempt jurisdiction ["the

Contempt Court"] in CPSW No. 688/2014 titled "Dilshada

Akhter Vs. Biswajeet Kumar Singh and others". The operative

portion of the order reads as under:-

"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 proceedings 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 the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 189/2014 dated 2nd September 2015 upheld by the Supreme court vide order dated 4th April 2016, failing which respondent No. 1 shall appear in person."

3. From reading the said operative portion, it clearly transpires that

the Contempt Court has not issued any fresh directions but has

only called upon the respondents to comply with judgment dated

25th April, 2014 in its letter and spirit, failing which the

respondent No. 1 would appear in person. Such orders are not

unknown to the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Order dated

25th April, 2014, as is canvassed before us, has not been complied

with its in letter and spirit. How this order was to be complied

with is already spelt out by the Contempt Court vide its order

dated 18.11.2021 passed in the contempt proceedings.

4. The consideration order, whereby the order of regularization of

the petitioner was given effect from 24th September, 2016, has not

been found to be complete compliance of the judgment and the

respondents have been directed to re-consider the matter and pass

appropriate orders so as to give effect to regularization of the

petitioner at least from 15th December, 2006, when the judgment

in SWP No. 2913/1993 and SWP No. 474/1990 was passed. This

order of contempt Court dated 18.11.2021 is not subject matter of

challenge before us.

5. The issue which is sought to be agitated by the appellants in this

appeal is otherwise set at rest by the Contempt Court vide order

dated 18.11.2021 and the same is not assailed by the appellants.

6. That apart, the appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent

against the order passed by the Contempt Court, issuing

directions to the respondents to comply with the judgment, is not

maintainable. Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act clearly

provides that appeal against the order of Contempt Court before

the Division Bench is maintainable only if it is passed in exercise

of jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Since the order impugned

is not passed in the exercise of such jurisdiction, as such, under

Section 19, the appeal is not maintainable.

7. The order impugned, whereby the only direction to the

respondents is to comply the judgment cannot be termed as a

final order or an order having trappings of final order appealable

under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

8. Viewed from any angle, this appeal is not maintainable. The same

is accordingly dismissed.

           (RAJESH SEKHRI)                 (SANJEEV KUMAR)
                  JUDGE                              JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
16.08.2023
ARIF