AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners, through the medium of the instant contempt petition, seek implementation of the judgment dated 13.12.2013 passed by the learned Writ Court in SWP No. 2318/2002. By virtue of the aforesaid judgment, the learned Writ Court had disposed of the writ petition with the following direction:
"In view of the above backdrop, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for their regularization strictly in terms of the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994 and having regards to the annexures appended to the writ petition, within a period of two months from the date copy of this order is made available to them."
The record reveals that the matter has remained pending for implementation of the aforesaid judgment for a considerable period of time. Earlier, the respondents had considered the claim of the petitioners and rejected the same vide consideration order dated 25.10.2014. The said consideration order formed the basis of the compliance report filed by the respondents in the present contempt proceedings.
When the said compliance report came up for consideration before this Court on 06.02.2026, the Court took note of the fact that the respondents, while rejecting the claim of the petitioners, had again taken the stand that the petitioners were not on the rolls on the relevant date and had not completed seven years of continuous service and were not presently working with the concerned Division. The Court noticed that the same stand had earlier been taken by the respondents before the learned Writ Court and had been dealt with in the judgment dated 13.12.2013, wherein the learned Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
"Therefore, as per the annexures annexed with the writ petition as well as with rejoinder, it is admitted that the petitioners were engaged as daily wagers in the year 1993-94 and that they are still continuing as daily wagers, as such, are entitled to the benefits under Rule 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules, 1994, referred to herienabove"
While taking note of the findings recorded by the learned Writ Court in its judgment dated 13.12.2013, the court further observed that the respondents could not take a view contrary to the issues which already stood determined by the learned Writ Court and by doing so the same would amount to sitting in appeal over the judgment sought to be implemented. The relevant observations made in the order dated 06.02.2026 read as under:
"In the face of aforesaid clear cut findings of the learned writ court, the respondents have no jurisdiction or authority to take a different view of the matter particularly when the stand which the respondents have taken in fresh consideration order had been quashed by the writ court. The course adopted by the respondents is contemptuous in nature and it amounts to sitting in appeal over the judgments of the court which is impermissible in law."
Accordingly, while rejecting the compliance report, the respondents were directed to file a fresh compliance report strictly in tune with the judgment of the learned Writ Court.
Thereafter, a fresh compliance report was filed by the respondents and when the matter came up before this Court on 10.03.2026, it was noticed that the respondents had again reiterated substantially the same stand regarding the alleged non-engagement of the petitioners despite the observations made by this Court in the order dated 06.02.2026. The Court observed as under:
"Fresh compliance report has been filed by the respondents in which same old story has been repeated that the petitioners were not engaged in the year 1993-94 and they are not continuing with the respondents as Daily Wagers. These aspects of the matter have already been dealt with by the writ Court while passing the order sought to be implemented."
It was further observed that the respondents deserved to be proceeded against for having committed contempt of Court. However, upon the assurance furnished by Dr. Senthil Kumar, IFS, Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu, who was present before the Court, that necessary corrective steps would be taken and the judgment of the learned Writ Court would be implemented, the matter was adjourned with the expectation that a compliance report strictly in tune with the judgment of the learned Writ Court would be filed by the next date of hearing.
Even thereafter, the respondents failed to bring the matter to its logical conclusion which was recorded in the subsequent orders, including the orders dated 13.05.2026 and 07.07.2026.
Subsequently, the matter came to be dealt with by this Court and, vide order dated 28.07.2026, this Court took note of the repeated failure of the respondents to file a compliance report in accordance with the directions issued by the learned Writ Court. This Court also noticed that despite the assurance extended before the Court and despite repeated opportunities having been granted, the respondents had failed to comply with the judgment dated 13.12.2013 in its letter and spirit. Accordingly, while granting one last and final opportunity in the instant contempt proceedings, this Court observed as under:
"Ordinarily, this Court could have framed rule against the respondents for their willful disobedience for not complying the order of the learned writ Court for more than 13 years, but this Court before proceeding further in the instant contempt petition and framing rule against the respondents, grant one last and final opportunity of one week to come up with the final compliance of the order passed by the writ Court, failing which this Court will be constrained to initiate coercive measures against the respondents."
Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the respondents have now placed on record a fresh compliance report and have stated that the claim of the petitioners has been considered afresh in terms of the directions issued by this Court, which consideration has culminated in the passing of a detailed Consideration Order No. 168-JK (FST) of 2026 dated 07.08.2026.
A perusal of the fresh consideration order reveals that, unlike the earlier consideration order, the respondents have undertaken a detailed examination of the claim of the petitioners and the documents relied upon by them in support of their claim for regularization. The respondents have, inter alia, examined the documents and annexures appended by the petitioners to the writ petition. Upon such examination, the competent authority has recorded findings regarding the authenticity and correctness of the material relied upon by the petitioners and has concluded that the petitioners had not approached the authorities with clean hands and that the material relied upon by them did not support the claim projected by them. It has also been recorded that the documents relied upon by the petitioners, including the documents relating to their alleged engagement and muster rolls, are not borne out from the official record and have been found by the respondents to be fake and forged.
The respondents have further taken a specific stand in the fresh order of consideration dated 07.08.2026 that there were no valid engagement orders issued by any competent authority in favour of the petitioners after scrutiny of the entire record. On the basis of the contemporaneous official record, it has been concluded that two out of the four petitioners had worked only for a limited period on need basis, whereas the remaining two petitioners had never worked with the Department and were never borne on its rolls. The consideration order also records that the documents relied upon by the petitioners in support of their alleged engagement from the year 1993 onwards are not supported by the relevant official record or by any treasury vouchers evidencing payment of wages by the Department.
The respondents have also recorded that the matter regarding the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the petitioners has been taken up with the concerned authorities for verification and further necessary action. The consideration order proceeds on the finding that the petitioners do not satisfy the essential requirements for consideration under SRO-64 of 1994, as, according to the respondents, they were neither validly engaged as Daily Rated Workers by a competent authority nor had they completed the requisite period of continuous service. On the aforesaid basis, the claim of the petitioners has been considered and rejected.
The question which now arises for consideration before this Court is whether, in the light of the fresh consideration order dated 07.08.2026, the respondents can be said to have committed willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment dated 13.12.2013 so as to warrant continuation of the present contempt proceedings.
At this stage, this Court is conscious of the fact that the jurisdiction exercised in contempt proceedings is confined to ensuring compliance with the judgment and directions issued by the learned writ Court. It is settled preposition of law that the contempt Court cannot travel beyond the scope of the order sought to be implemented, nor can it enlarge the directions contained therein.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Jalim Singh vs Nand Kishore & Ors", Special Leave Petition(C) No. 20915/2024, decided on 17.03.2026, while considering the scope and limits of jurisdiction exercised by a Court in contempt proceedings, has held as under:
"In such circumstances, it was impermissible for the High Court, while exercising its contempt jurisdiction, to expand the scope of inquiry by re-examining issues relating to regularisation or absorption of the appellant in a Class-III post. The jurisdiction in contempt proceedings is confined to examining compliance with the directions issued and does not extend to re-adjudication of issues which stand concluded"
The jurisdiction of this Court in the instant contempt proceedings is confined to examining whether the directions issued by the learned writ Court in its judgment dated 13.12.2013 have been complied with. This Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, cannot enlarge the scope of original writ proceedings or undertake a fresh adjudication on the merits of the claim of the petitioners for regularization. Now that the respondents have passed a fresh consideration order, the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded therein cannot be examined in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction.
In the present case, the operative direction contained in the judgment dated 13.12.2013 was for consideration of the claim of the petitioners for regularization in accordance with the provisions of SRO-64 of 1994 and having regard to the material and annexures placed on record. The learned Writ Court had not issued a positive direction directing the regularization of the petitioners. Thus, once the respondents have undertaken a fresh consideration of the claim after examining the entire record and have passed a reasoned and detailed consideration order, the question as to whether the findings recorded therein are legally sustainable or otherwise cannot be examined in the present contempt proceedings.
It is well settled that contempt jurisdiction cannot be converted into a forum for examining the correctness or legality of an order passed in purported compliance with the judgment of the Court. Once a direction requiring consideration has been complied with by undertaking such consideration and passing a reasoned order, the correctness of the decision so taken has to be tested in appropriate proceedings and cannot be adjudicated upon in contempt jurisdiction.
In the present case, the respondents have now placed on record the fresh consideration order dated 07.08.2026, whereby the claim of the petitioners has been examined afresh and dealt with in detail. The mere fact that the claim of the petitioners has ultimately been rejected would not, by itself, give rise to a cause for continuing the contempt proceedings, particularly when the original direction of the learned Writ Court was for consideration of their claim and not for granting regularization as such.
This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the respondents have now complied with the direction contained in the judgment dated 13.12.2013 by undertaking a fresh consideration of the claim of the petitioners and have passed a detailed consideration order. Whether the findings recorded in the said consideration order are sustainable in law is a matter which falls outside the limited scope of the present contempt proceedings.
Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed and the contempt proceedings are dropped as the order/judgment passed by the learned writ Court stands complied with. Rule, if any, shall stand discharged.
It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion whatsoever on the merits, correctness or legality of the consideration order dated 07.08.2026. The petitioners shall be at liberty to avail such remedy as may be available to them in law for assailing the said consideration order, if so advised.
Disposed of , accordingly.
The record which has been provided to this Court by Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG in a sealed cover be handed over to her by the Registry against proper receipt.