Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Parvez Ahmed And Ors vs Shailander Kumar Misra Secy. Pwd on 7 May, 2025
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
S. No. 81
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No. CCP (S) No. 18/2021
CM No. 7369/2024
Parvez Ahmed and ors. .....Petitioners(s)
q
Through: Mr. R.K.S Thakur, Advocate
vs
Shailander Kumar Misra Secy. PWD ..... Respondent(s)
((R&B))Dept. and others.
Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
07.05.2025
1. The instant application has been maintained by the contemnors/respondents
applicants herein seeking dismissal of the contempt petition
CCP (S) No. 18/2021 on the ground being barred by limitation, on the
premise that the petitioners/non-applicants herein have alleged
non-compliance of judgement and order dated 05.10.2015 while maintaining
the contempt petition on 05.02.2025 after the period of limitation prescribed
thereof under Section 20 of the contempt of Courts Act 1971.
2. Objections to the application have been filed by the petitioners/non-
applicants, wherein the application is opposed. It is being admitted that the
contempt petition was filed on 05.02.2021, for non-compliance of judgement
and order dated 05.10.2015 and that on 10.02.2021, the counsel for the
petitioners/non-applicants herein though came to be directed by the Court to
produce the judgment regarding delay in filing the contempt petition, same
came to be produced and considered by the Court on 19.02.2021, as a
consequence whereof, the contempt petition was entertained and notice
thereof came to be issued by the Court to the contemnors.
It is further stated that in response to the said notice issued, the
respondents/contemnors appeared and filed statements of facts/compliance
report along with a consideration order dated 26.04.2021, rejecting the claim
of the petitioners and that after the filing of the said compliance report, on
06.05.2022, the Court while taking the cognizance of the contempt petition,
as also the compliance report filed thereto by the respondents/contemnors
adverted to the issue of non-compliance of the judgment and order and
opined that the compliance report is not in consonance with the orders
passed by the Court requiring the respondents/contemnors to file fresh
compliance report which as well came to be filed by the
respondents/contemnors on 09.10.2022 alongwith another consideration
order dated 03.10.2022, yet again rejecting the claim of the petitioners.
It is next stated in the objections that the contempt petition was again
listed for consideration before the Court on 10.12.2024 and thereafter, on
12.12.2024 and while considering the contempt petition again the court
observed that the judgment and order complained of, has not been complied
with and the Court even directed issuance of bailable warrant for seeking the
presence of the contemnors, and that thereafter, the respondents/contemnors
instead of reporting compliance of the judgement, maintained in the instant
application seeking rejection of the contempt petition on the ground of
limitation.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Insofar as the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is
concerned, the same indisputably deals with the limitation for actions for
contempt and provides that "no Courts shall initiate any proceeding for
contempt either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiry of a period
of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been
committed."
4. Keeping in mind the aforesaid provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of
Courts Act and reverting back to the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the
judgment and order, non-compliance of which has been alleged in the
contempt petition has been admittedly passed on 05.10.2015. It is also not in
dispute that the contempt petition came to be filed by the petitioners/non-
applicants on 05.02.2021.
5. A perusal of the contempt petition would reveal that the petitioners/non-
applicants herein in the contempt petition pleaded that their case had been
submitted by the Executing Engineer PWD(R&B) Ramban vide letter dated
28.04.2016, along with five Daily Wage Workers to the Superintendent
Engineer on 28.04.2016 whereafter the Superintendent Engineer had
submitted the same to the Chief Engineer on 31.05.2016 and thereafter, the
Chief Engineer had forwarded the case of the daily wagers including that of
the petitioners to the concerned Commissioner Secretary on 27.06.2016 and
consequently a speaking order came to be issued on 27.07.2017, providing
therein that the five daily wage workers including the petitioners were
engaged in PWD (R&B) Division Ramban under different orders and that
the said daily wagers have rendered seven years of service and fulfil the
eligibility prescribed under SRO 64 for regularisation.
6. Record of the contempt petition also reveals that the petitioners/non-
applicants has also pleaded therein the contempt petition that subsequent to
the issuance of order dated 27.07.2017, the matter remained pending with
the respondents/contemnors and on 08.01.2021, the Administrative
Department sought a verification in the matter qua the status of the daily
wagers in the MR sheets in response to which the Chief Engineer on
11.01.2021 sought a report from the Executive Engineer PWD (R&B)
Division Ramban which report came to be furnished on 19.01.2021
reiterating therein that the petitioners have had been working as daily wager
workers in the division since 1993 till date continuously.
7. Further perusal of the record also reveals that the Chief Engineer in terms of
letter dated 23.01.2021 had submitted a report received from the Executive
Engineer to the Principal Secretary to the Government PWD(R&B) Jammu
on 23.01.2021, referred in the contempt petition and upon failure of the
contemnors applicants herein for taking a further action in regard to the
implementation of the judgment and order dated on 05.10.2015, the
contempt petition came to be instituted on 05.02.2021 by the
petitioners/non-applicants herein.
8. In view of the aforesaid factual position pleaded by the petitioners/non-
applicants herein inasmuch as, in absence of any contradictory
pleading/response filed by the respondents/contemnors applicants herein
thereto, it cannot, but be said that the petitioners have maintained the
contempt petition well within the time prescribed in Section 20 of the
Contempt of Courts Act.
9. The instant application, thus, is found to be grossly mis-conceived, so much
so, seemingly having been filed by the respondents/contemnors applicants
herein with a design to defeat the proceedings in the contempt petition in
general and, in particular, the implementation of judgment and order dated
05.10.2015, in view of the fact that the respondents/contemnors applicants
even though have had raised the plea of limitation initially in the first
compliance report/statement of facts filed, yet did not press the same
thereafter and even did not oppose the contempt petition at the time of taking
cognizance of the contempt petition by this Court on 19.02.2021, inasmuch
as thereafter as well when the respondents/contemnors applicants herein
filed multiple statement of facts/compliance reports in opposition to the
contempt petition accompanied with the consideration orders to show that
the case of the petitioners stand considered and rejected.
10. The instant application, thus, for the aforesaid reasons is dismissed with
costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the respondents/contemnors applicants
herein from their own pocket and deposited with the Registrar Judicial of
this Court within two weeks from today.
List for consideration on 21.05.2025.
(Javed Iqbal Wani)
Judge
Jammu
07.05.2025
Rahul Sharma
