CPSW No. 180/2013 Page 1 of 5 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Pronounced on :- 11.03.2026 Uploaded on :- 12.03.2026 CPSW No. 180/2013 Mohd. Bashir …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate Vs M.K. Diwadi, Secretary, Department of Health and Medical Education, J&K Govt., Jammu & Ors. .….Respondents Through: Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Advocate vice Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (11.03.2026) 01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, is seeking implementation of order dated 04.10.2012 passed in SWP No. 1981/2010. In terms of the said order, a direction was issued to the respondents to take steps for implementing the judgment dated 06.05.1998 passed in SWP No. 860/1994. Vide the said judgment, the following directions were issued to the respondents :- Serial No. 24 CPSW No. 180/2013 Page 2 of 5 “Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with the following directions :- i. That the writ petition be treated as a representation ; ii. That the claims of the petitioner be considered in terms of the various standing orders and policy decisions. iii. Respondents would also take notice of the decision given by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as “State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh” AIR 1992 SC 2130. Let appropriate steps be taken as early as possible preferably within a period of three months. The period of three months would begin from the date, the copy of the order passed by this court alongwith writ petition and annexures thereof are made available by the petitioner to the concerned authorities. iv. That the claim of the petitioner for monetary benefits be also considered within the aforementioned period. In case, the monetary claims are due and these are not settled within the stipulated period, then the petitioner would be entitled to the interest. The rate of interest would be 12%. v. During the period, the matter is under consideration with the respondent-authorities, they would maintain status- quo with regard to the service conditions of the petitioner. In case, any adverse order is passed, that be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks.” 02. The respondents have filed statement of facts/compliance report in which it has been submitted that judgment of CPSW No. 180/2013 Page 3 of 5 the writ Court has been complied with in its letter and spirit and consideration order bearing No. DHJ- J/Legal/3663-66 dated 30.07.2013 has been issued by the respondents whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 03. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner have not considered his claim in accordance with the spirit of judgment dated 06.05.1998 inasmuch as the Court had directed maintenance of status quo with regard to the service condition of the petitioner and it was also directed that the petitioner has to be paid monetary claims. 04. A perusal of the consideration order dated 30.07.2013 would reveal that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner was engaged as Class IV on stop gap basis and was relieved from services consequent upon selection made by the District Chairman, District Recruitment Board Rajouri vide order No. DRC-IV/94/509-10 dated 28.06.1994. It has been further stated in the consideration order that one Mohd. Iqbal has been appointed on substantive basis CPSW No. 180/2013 Page 4 of 5 on the post held by the petitioner and that the petitioner stands relieved on 10.08.1994 and is no more in Government services since then. 05. The direction from the Court to the respondents was to treat the writ petition of the petitioner as a representation and consider his claim in the light of the policy and in the light of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of “State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh” AIR 1992 SC 2130. Once the respondents found that the petitioner was no more in Government services and he was relieved on 10.08.1994 even before passing of the order dated 06.05.1998, they rejected his claim as he was not satisfying the eligibility in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Piara Singh’s case and the guidelines holding the field. 06. The question whether the action taken by the respondents is tenable in law cannot be determined by this Court in these proceedings. If the petitioner has any grievance against the consideration order dated 30.07.2013, he is at liberty to take an appropriate legal recourse in accordance with law. CPSW No. 180/2013 Page 5 of 5 07. Once the respondents have accorded consideration to the claim of the petitioner and passed an order of consideration, the judgment of the Court stands complied with, as such, there is no case for proceeding against the respondents. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are closed and the contempt petition is disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 11.03.2026 SUNIL Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes Whether the order is reportable ? : No