Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Farooq Ahmad Sheikh vs Mr. Sandeep Kumar Naik And Anr on 28 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
S. No.5
Regular List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CPSW No.533/2017
in[SWP No.908/2017]
FAROOQ AHMAD SHEIKH
... Petitioner(s)
Through: - Mr.Syed Manzoor, Advocate.
Vs.
MR. SANDEEP KUMAR NAIK AND ANR
...Respondent(s)
Through: - Mr.Syed Musaib, Dy.AG
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
28.02.2025
1) The petitioner through the medium of present petition is seeking
implementation of order dated 22.05.2017 passed by the writ Court,
whereby a direction was issued to the respondents to examine and
consider the claim of the petitioner on the analogy of the judgment
delivered by this Court in SWP No.2152/2014 on 06.03.2017 and take
a decision within eight weeks.
2) Fresh compliance report has been filed by the respondents in
which it has been submitted that they have complied with the judgment
of the writ Court and have passed a consideration order
No.69/DS/JK/2017 dated 26.09.2017, whereby claim of the petitioner
has been rejected.
3) It appears that on an earlier occasion during the pendency of
these Contempt proceedings, the aforesaid consideration order was
found to be in tune with the order of the writ Court and, accordingly,
the contempt proceedings were closed vide order dated 13.03.2019.
However, on a review petition filed by the contempt petitioners, the
aforesaid order was reviewed on the ground that no details are provided
in the order of rejection, qua the status of the petitioner with those in
SWP No.2152/2014 and the contempt petition was restored to its
4) In the fresh compliance report, the respondents have relied upon
the same consideration order dated 26.09.2017, but they have explained
in their compliance report that the petitioner's case has no parity with
the petitioner in SWP No.2152/2014. It has been submitted that the
petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition has been regularized purely on
the strength of Court direction and the documents produced by him. It
has been further explained that the petitioner in the aforesaid writ
petition, namely Shri Naba Lone was engaged in the year 1986, while
as the petitioner in the instant case was verbally asked to work as
casual/seasonal labourer in the year 1997. According to the respondents
the services of the petitioner were utilized as casual/seasonal labourer
as and when required for a specific job, hence he has no comparison
CPSW No. 533/2017 in [SWP No. 908/2017] P a g e | 2 of 3
with Shri Naba Lone whose services were regularized and, as such, the
contempt petitioner cannot claim any discrimination.
5) In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, it
becomes clear that they have differentiated the case of the petitioner
from the case of Shri Naba Lone, who happens to be petitioner in SWP
No.2152/2014. It will not be open to this Court in these proceedings to
determine the legality of consideration order dated 26.09.2017 having
regard to the facts and circumstances explained by the respondents in
their fresh compliance report. If at all the petitioner has any grievance
against the said order, he is at liberty to challenge the same by way of
appropriate proceedings.
6) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the present
contempt petition. Thus the proceedings are closed and the contempt
petition is disposed of.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
28.02.2025
Sarveeda Nissar
CPSW No. 533/2017 in [SWP No. 908/2017] P a g e | 3 of 3
every page at bottom left side
