[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Udham Singh vs Shailendra Kumar & Ors on 7 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Serial No. 07
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CCP (D) No. 35/2025 in
WP (C) No. 2267/2024
Udham Singh .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. K. D. S. Kotwal, Advocate with
Mr. Tasaddur Hussain, Advocate
vs
Shailendra Kumar & Ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA vice
Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
07.02.2026
1. This is a petition for initiating contempt proceedings against the
respondents for wilful defiance and non-compliance of the order
passed by this Court on 03.03.2025 in WP(C) No. 2267/2024,
whereby this Court, while allowing the writ petition, directed the
respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularisation in terms of judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1167/2021.
2. In response to the notice issued, the respondents have entered
appearance and have filed objections/statement of facts. Today, when
the case was taken up for consideration, Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, learned
GA appearing vice Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned GA for the
respondents, passed on a copy of Government Order No. 92-JK
(APD) of 2026 dated 07.02.2026, whereby the case of the petitioner
has been considered and he has been regularised against the available
post of Multi Tasking Staff (Nursery Man) in the Sericulture
Development Department prospectively. The said order is taken on
record.
3. From the reading of the Government order dated 07.02.2026 (supra),
it clearly transpires that though the respondents have considered the
case of the petitioner for regularisation and have also accorded
approval for his regularisation as Multi Tasking Staff in the
Sericulture Development Department, yet they have given the effect
to the order of regularisation from the date of issuance of the order.
This is not a complete compliance of the order passed by this Court.
The direction was clear and unequivocal and provided for
considering the regularisation of the petitioner under SRO 64 of
1994. Needless to say that in terms of SRO 64 of 1994, a daily-wager
becomes entitled to regularization in the financial year, next after the
year, in which he completes continuous service of seven years. In the
instant case, the petitioner having been appointed as a daily-wager in
the year 1989 completed seven years continuous service in the year
1996 and, therefore, was entitled to be regularised w.e.f. 01.04.1997.
This aspect of the matter has not been considered or possibly,
deliberately ignored by the respondents.
4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the order dated 03.03.2025
still remains to be complied with in full.
5. Accordingly, the respondents are given four weeks' further time to
issue a corrigendum to the Government Order dated 07.02.2026 and
give the effect to the regularization of the petitioner from 01.04.1997,
so as to show complete compliance of the order dated 03.03.2025.
6. List on 23.03.2026.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
Jammu
07.02.2026
Vishal Sharma
