Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Madan Lal & Anr vs B. V. R. Subrahmanyam & Ors on 14 March, 2023
Sr. No. 58
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CPSW No. 647/2018 in
CPSW No. 536/2018
Madan Lal & anr. .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Ms. Supriya Chouhan, Advocate in
CPSW No. 536/2018
None in CPSW No. 647/2018
V/s
B. V. R. Subrahmanyam & ors. .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. K. D. S. Kotwal, DyAG in both
petitions
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
CPSW No. 536/2018
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents are
directed to file fresh statement of facts within a period of three weeks with
copy in advance to learned counsel for the petitioners, who may also respond
to the same within a period of two weeks thereafter.
List on 26.04.2023.
CPSW No. 647/2018
01. The present petition arises out of the order/judgment dated
12.03.2018 passed by this Court in SWP No. 03/2018 titled Madan Lal & ors.
vs. State of J&K and ors. By virtue of the aforesaid order/judgment, a
direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner, of course,
under rules and having regard to the judgment dated 10.11.2017 passed in
SWP No. 2645/2012 and connected matter provided the same applicable to
the case of the petitioners. Respondents were directed to do the needful within
a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order along with
judgment aforesaid. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
has filed the present contempt petition for non-implementation of the
judgment which has attained finality.
02. Fresh compliance report has been filed on behalf of respondent No.
3 and along with fresh compliance report, a detailed consideration order No.
117-F of 2020 dated 25.03.2020 has been placed on record by the
respondents which is in implementation of the judgment dated 12.03.2018
passed in SWP No. 03/2018. Respondents have stated that the case of the
petitioners has been accorded consideration and upon re-examination of the
case as per the order dated 12.02.2020, the claim being not tenable under rules
was rejected for the reasons that the case of the petitioners was distinct from
the petitioners in SWP No. 2645/2012, in respect of the fact that the
petitioners therein were aggrieved of the recoveries initiated in view of wrong
fixation but in the present case the question of recovery is neither invited nor
involved as the pay fixation has been rightly done, therefore, it was held that
parity of the judgment in SWP No. 2645/2012 was not attracted.
03. Since the direction which is sought to be complied with was limited
to the extent of according consideration to the claim of the petitioners under
rules and having regard to the judgment of this Court dated 10.11.2017 passed
in SWP No. 2645/2012 provided the same is applicable to the petitioners.
From the perusal of the stand taken by the respondents coupled with the
detailed consideration order, it is manifestly clear that the judgment dated
10.11.2017 passed in SWP No. 2645/2012 was distinguishable and was not
applicable to the case of the petitioners in hand and accordingly, for the
detailed reasons, the order of consideration has been passed by virtue of
which, the case of the petitioners stood rejected.
04. Heard learned counsel for the respondents at length and perused the
record.
05. Since the judgment/order passed by this Court has been complied
with in letter and spirit. Accordingly, the proceedings in the present contempt
petition are closed for the reasons stated hereinabove. Contempt petition is
disposed of, as such. However, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the
order of consideration dated 25.03.2020, if so advised.
06. Rule, if any, shall stand discharged.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
JAMMU
14.03.2023
RAM MURTI
