Mohan Lal vs Rakesh Gupta And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2229 j&K

                                                                       Sr. No. 12


              HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                            AT JAMMU


                                                    CPSW no. 217/2012
                                                    CM nos. 3307/2023, 4843/2023,
                                                    7270/2021, 2246/2021 [1/2019]
                                                    1722/2023, 4190/2019 &
                                                    6069/2023




Mohan Lal                                              ....Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                  Through :- Mr. M.P. Sharma, Advocate.


        V/s

Rakesh Gupta and ors.                                             ....Respondent(s)


                  Through :- Mr. Vishal Bharti, Advocate for 1 and 2.
                             Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for R-4 with
                             Ms. Sheikh Saliqa, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

                                  ORDER

09.10.2023

1. Respondent 4 is present in person. However, respondent 1 is

not present in compliance to order dated 18.09.2023.

2. Perusal of the record of the instant contempt petition would

reveal that the petitioner herein earned a judgment in his

favour in the year 2012 passed in SWP No. 1475/2010

whereunder the respondents (in the instant contempt petition

the officers of the Forest Department) came to be directed to

consider the case of the petitioner for regularization

retrospectively.

3. Perusal of the record suggests that the judgment (supra)

came to be upheld by the Division Bench as also the Apex 2 CPSW no. 217/2012

Court after being thrown challenge to by the respondents, yet

the respondents did not regularize the services of the

petitioner retrospectively resulting into institution of the

instant contempt petition in the year 2012 itself.

4. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the respondent 2

in the contempt petition being Principal Chief Conservator of

Forest had filed a compliance report in the instant contempt

petition stating therein that the Finance Department vide U.O

dated 12.09.2023 accorded concurrence for granting of

retrospective effect to the regularization of services of the

petitioner and consequently referred the matter to the

General Administrative Department for approval of the

competent authority.

5. Perusal of the record would further tend to show that the

respondent/contemnor 1 being Principal Secretary to

Government, Forest Department on account of his absence

before the Court came to be directed on 18.09.2023 to remain

present before the Court after the Court noticed that the

judgment has not been complied with, however, respondent/

contemnor 1 had filed an application for seeking his

exemption from personal appearance which exemption came

to be granted on the said date i.e., 18.09.2023 providing two

weeks further time to the respondents/contemnors for filing

compliance report qua grant of retrospective effect to the

regularization of services of the petitioner failing which

respondents/contemnors 1 and 4 had to remain present

before the Court today.

3 CPSW no. 217/2012

6. As noticed above, respondent 4 is present in person yet the

respondent 1 has chosen not to appear and has instead again

filed an application for seeking exemption from personal

appearance on the same and similar grounds on which the

exemption from personal appearance was sought by him

earlier on 18.09.2023.

7. Record of the case also demonstrates that the respondent/

contemnor 1 has not filed any compliance report despite the

fact it has been the respondent/contemnor 1 alone who, in

terms of the judgment passed by this Court whereunder the

instant contempt petition has arisen, had to comply the same

notwithstanding his stand submitted earlier that the matter

stands referred to the General Administrative Department for

obtaining approval of the competent authority.

8. The fact remains that the judgment passed by this court on

17.04.2012 has remained unimplemented till date by the

respondents/contemnors, in particular, by respondent/

contemnor 1 which, prima facie, constitutes contempt of

court committed by the respondent/contemnor 1 and

warrants as such initiation of contempt proceedings against

respondent 1. However, before framing of formal rule against

the respondent/contemnor 1 for observing the series of

orders passed by this court in the instant contempt petition

in breach inasmuch as not appearing before the court in

compliance to order dated 18.09.2023, the Court is compelled

to secure the presence of respondent/contemnor 1 through 4 CPSW no. 217/2012

issuance of bailable warrants to be executed through Senior

Superintendent of Police, Jammu/Srinagar.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the

application filed by the respondent/contemnor 1 seeking

exemption from personal appearance is not acceptable and is

accordingly rejected.

10. It is made clear that the issuance of bailable warrants for

securing the presence of respondent/contemnor 1 shall not

stand in the way of the respondents/contemnors in reporting

compliance of the judgment passed by this Court on

17.04.2012 by or before the next date of hearing.

11. List the matter for further consideration on 16.10.2023.

12. The personal appearance of the respondent 4 is dispensed

with for the time being.

(JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE

JAMMU 09.10.2023 NARESH/Secy.