Raj Singh Randhawa vs Anuradha Gupta
2024 Latest Caselaw 2219 j&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Raj Singh Randhawa vs Anuradha Gupta on 25 October, 2024

Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

                                                             Serial No. 35


     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU
Case:-   CCP(S) No. 686/2019 in
         SWP No. 1706/2008

Raj Singh Randhawa                                 .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

                       Through: Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate.

                Vs

Anuradha Gupta, Director, School Education                    ..... Respondent(s)
Jammu

                       Through: Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Advocate vice
                                Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG.

Coram:   HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE

                                   ORDER

(25.10.2024)

1. The instant contempt petition has been filed for alleged non-

compliance of judgment dated 05.04.2010 passed by this Court in the writ

petition bearing SWP No. 1706/2008. The operative part of the judgment is

extracted hereunder:

"Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the direction that let the respondents consider the matter on the parity of cases employees mentioned above and if, it is, found that these employees are similarly placed, the same benefits be extended to the petitioner also. Let the respondents re-consider the case of the petitioner and implement the recommendation No. Edu-J/APH/98- 131 dated 18th February, 1999, within a period of three months from the date this order is served upon the respondents."

2. Compliance report stands filed by the respondents, it is stated that

vide communication No. Edu.LGLOJmu(HC)/107/287/2022/c No. 196544 dated

19.12.2022 it has been conveyed that the case of the petitioner was examined

and it has been observed that the petitioner has been married to Smt. Kuldeep

Kour on 02.12.2001 as per the marriage certificate and his marital status is

married on 02.12.2001, as such, the claim of petitioner for compassionate

appointment, cannot be considered by the General Administration Department.

The respondents have passed a speaking order thereby rejecting the claim of the

petitioner, being devoid of merit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that copy of the compliance

report along with consideration order has not been provided to him and he got to

know today itself i.e. on 25.10.2024 that the respondents have considered the

claim of the petitioner and rejected the same being devoid of merits.

4. The contempt proceedings initiated against the respondent are closed.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the consideration order, if he

desires so.

(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE JAMMU 25.10.2024 Shivalee

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No