Ut Of Jk And Others vs Gh. Mohi-Ud-Din & Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 2475 J&K/2

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Ut Of Jk And Others vs Gh. Mohi-Ud-Din & Anr on 24 December, 2025

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

                                                                                         Serial No. 05
                                                                                         REGULAR LIST

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                                             AT SRINAGAR
                                       CM 5212/2025 in LPA 186/2025
                       UT OF JK AND OTHERS                          ...Appellant(s)
                       Through: Mr. Mohammad Younis Hafiz, AC
                                                                 Vs.
                       GH. MOHI-UD-DIN & ANR                                           ...Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. M.Y. Bhat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hamza Prince, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDE R 24.12.2025

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 372 days in filing the LPA No 186/2025, challenging an order dated 7th June, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CCP(S) No. 485/2023.

2. Objections on behalf of the respondents have been filed.

3. The application, for the reasons stated therein is allowed, and the delay of 372 days in filing LPA No. 186/2025 is condoned.

4. CM disposed of.

1. This intra-court appeal filed in terms of Clause 12 of the Letters

Patent, is directed against the order dated 7th June, 2024 passed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court in CCP(S) 485/2023, whereby the

learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to file a compliance

report in respect of the left out employees after holding that the

judgment of which the violation is alleged, is a judgment in rem and

not a judgment in personam.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of

SWP No. 2461/2013, we are in agreement with the learned Single

authenticity of this document Judge that SWP No. 2461/2013 was filed by two persons, namely

Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Sofi and Abdul Rashid Shagoo, for and on

behalf of the eighty nine (89) similarly situated employees.

3. In paragraph one (1) of the petition, it was specifically pleaded by the

aforesaid petitioners that they had been authorized by eighty nine (89)

persons to file the writ petition by passing a resolution. As a matter of

fact, the resolution passed by the said eighty nine (89) persons has also

been placed on record. We also find that a separate application in

terms of Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC seeking permission of the Court to

file the petition in representative capacity was also filed, in which on

the orders passed by the Court a notice was also published in a Daily

Newspaper. Otherwise also, from a reading of the judgment passed in

SWP No. 2461/2013, it clearly comes out that the judgment was

applicable at least to the two named petitioners as well as the eighty

nine (89) others who had authorized the named petitioners to file the

petition and, therefore, cannot be construed as a judgment in respect of

only two persons. That apart, it has brought to our notice by the

learned counsel for the respondents that part of the judgment has been

complied with in respect of all the employees and, therefore, the plea

that the judgment in SWP No. 2461/2013 is a judgment in personam

and not a judgment in rem is not available to the appellants.

4. For the forgoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal, and the same

is accordingly dismissed.

                                 (SANJAY PARIHAR)                           (SANJEEV KUMAR)
                                          JUDGE                                     JUDGE
                         SRINAGAR:
                         24.12.2025
                         "ARIF