Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Irshad Ahmed Khan vs Manoj Kumar Dwivedi Commr./Secy To on 3 January, 2025
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
Sr. No.43 & 28
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CPSW No. 412/2016 &
ROBSW No. 1/2025
Irshad Ahmed Khan .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Dhruv Pant, Advocate
Vs
Manoj Kumar Dwivedi Commr./Secy to ..... Respondent(s)
GAD
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Mr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG
Ms. Anjeet Kour, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
03.01.2025
1. Upon coming up this contempt petition for consideration, the counsel for
the contemnors/respondents being Commissioner/Secretary to
Government Administration Department and Commissioner/Secretary to
Transport Department stated at bar that the Managing Director, J&K RTC
has been specifically instructed to comply with the judgment dated
02.12.2015 by offering appointment on compassionate ground to the
petitioner.
2. Mrs. Monika Kohli and Mr. Rajesh Thapa appearing counsel for the said
respondents produced two communications No. TRPT-
MVDOLEG/17/2022-02 dated 16.12.2024 and TRPT MVDOleg/17/2022-
02 dated 26.12.2024, which communications are taken on record, reveal
that the Managing Director, J&K RTC Jammu stands instructed to
implement the judgment and to file compliance report accordingly on
behalf of the respondents.
3. The counsel for the Managing Director, namely Anjeet Kour, at this stage
produced a copy of order bearing No. JKRTC/GMA/PS/J/330 dated
03.01.2025 issued by the Managing Director JKKRTC, which order reads
as under:
"In pursuance to the Hon'ble High Court directions, sanction
is hereby accorded to the appointment of Sh. Irshad Ahmad
Khan S/o Late Shri Mohd Yaqoob R/o 249, Talab Khatikan,
Jammu under SRO -43 category in JKRTC on Consolidated
remuneration of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees One thousand five
hundred only) per month subject to confirmation of JKRTC
Board of Directors.
4. A copy of the aforesaid order came to be also furnished to the counsel for
the petitioner.
5. Perusal of the aforesaid order would reveal that sanction has been
accorded to the appointment of the petitioner under SRO 43 in the
Corporation on consolidated remuneration of Rs. 1500/- per month,
subject to the confirmation by Board of Directors of the Corporation.
6. Mr. Rahul Pant, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, however,
would submit that the order of appointment of the petitioner dated
03.01.2025 is not in any case the compliance of the judgment, whereunder
the instant contempt petition has arisen. Mr. Pant would submit that the
petitioner may join the Corporation pursuant to the order of appointment
dated 03.01.2025, however, would reserve a right for seeking said
appointment retrospectively on substantive basis and joining of the
petitioner pursuant to order dated 03.01.2025 shall not operate as a bar in
this regard.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, inasmuch
as, the submission of Mr. Pant, it is deemed appropriate to close the
instant contempt proceedings and to provide aforesaid liberty to the
petitioner as sought by his counsel.
8. Accordingly, contempt proceedings are closed with the aforesaid liberty
to the petitioner.
9. In view of the closing of the proceedings in the instant petition, the
ROBKAR framed against the respondents/contemnors by this court in
terms of order dated 30.12.2024 shall stand recalled and closed.
(Javed Iqbal Wani)
Judge
Jammu
03.01.2025
Karam Chand/Secy.
