Miran Bibi And Another vs Raj Kumar And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 482 j&K

                                                                    Sr. No. 43

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU

                                                       CPOWP No. 215/2017

Miran Bibi and another                             .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                         Through:-   Mr. Maharban Singh, Advocate

                  V/s

Raj Kumar and another                                       .....Respondent(s)

                         Through:-   Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG. vice
                                     Mr. KDS Kotwal, Dy. AG.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
                                  ORDER

01. The present contempt petition has been preferred for non-

compliance of the order/judgment dated 21.02.2014 by virtue of which the

writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to initiate and

conduct exercise in settling family pension case of petitioner No. 1 for

pensionary benefits of her deceased husband and to also consider

engagement of petitioner No. 2 in the Department under SRO 43 within a

period of two months from the date a copy of the order was made

available to the respondents. Besides, there is a direction to the petitioners

to provide all relevant documents to the respondents as demanded by

them.

02. The petitioners have filed present contempt petition for willful

disobedience on the part of the respondents inspite of knowledge of the

order. The statement of facts has been filed by the respondents in which a

specific stand has been taken in para No. (vi) and (viii) that the

respondents have requested both the petitioners vide communication No.

DSHJ/2013-14/13750-51 dated 29.03.2014 to provide the documents

detail of which has been given in Annexure A and B in order to settle the

family pension case of petitioner No. 1 and appointment of petitioner No.

2 as per SRO 43, but out of 31 documents as per Annexures A and B, only

11 documents were provided by the petitioners and this was precisely the

reason that the respondents was not in a position to comply the

order/judgment dated 21.02.2014 passed by this Court.

03. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the

record.

04. Since the directions which is sought to be complied with

specifically directed the respondents to initially conduct exercise in

settling family pension case of petitioner No. 1 for pensionary benefits of

her deceased husband and to also consider engagement of petitioner No. 2

in the Department under SRO 43, provided the petitioners shall supply all

relevant documents to the respondents as may be demanded by them. As

per stand of the respondents, the petitioners have not provided all the

relevant documents as desired by the respondents and, accordingly,

respondents were unable to process the case of the petitioners for the

release of formal pension of petitioner No. 1, besides according

consideration for engagement of petitioner No. 2 in the Department under

SRO 43.

05. In the light of the aforesaid communication, nothing remains for

adjudication in the present contempt petition and, accordingly, the

proceedings in this contempt petition are closed. It is made clear that in

case the petitioners furnish all the requisite documents as demanded, the

respondents shall release the pensionary benefits and also consider

engagement of petitioner No. 2 in the Department as per SRO 43 in terms

of order/judgment dated 21.02.2014 and if the needful is not done, the

petitioners will be at liberty to revive the contempt petition.

(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE

Jammu 14.03.2023 Vishal