Kundan Kumari Raina vs Rigzin Sampheal And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2293 j&K

                                                                  Sr. No. 29
       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                       AT JAMMU

                                                       CPSW No. 764/2018


Kundan Kumari Raina                               .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                         Through:-   Mr. R. Koul, Advocate.

                  V/s

Rigzin Sampheal and another                                .....Respondent(s)

                         Through:-   Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Assisting counsel to
                                     Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
                     ORDER

13.10.2023

01. Proceedings in this contempt petition have been initiated by the

petitioner for non-compliance of judgment and order dated 22.03.2017

passed in APSWP No. 76/2016 titled 'Kundan Kumari Raina Vs. State of

J&K and others' vide which the writ petition was disposed of with the

following directions:-

"In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the fact that the error has been crept in paragraph No. 4 of the order, it is directed that word 'notional' shall be read as 'retrospective promotional'. This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 30.09.2016 passed in SWP No.459/2006"

02. The respondents, in their compliance report, submit that they

have complied with the judgment dated 22.03.2017 by passing Order No.

246-DSEK of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 vide which sanction was accorded

to the promotion of the petitioner in the pre-revised grade of Rs. 5500-

9000 w.e.f. 27.11.1993 on regular basis instead of notional basis on the

same terms and conditions as laid down in the Order No. 226-DSEK of

2001 dated 10.09.2001.

03. The respondents further submit that the actual benefits would be

given to the petitioner within a period of two months.

04. In view of the aforesaid, order dated 22.03.2017 of this Court stands

complied. Proceedings in this contempt petition are, accordingly, closed.

05. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to revive the same in case

the benefits are not released in her favour.

(Sindhu Sharma) Judge

Jammu:

13.10.2023 Michal Sharma