HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CCP(S) No. 549/2019 In WP(C) No. 2135/2019 CM Nos. 9720/2021 & 5521/2022 Radha Krishan …..Petitioner Through: Mr. M.P. Sharma, Advocate. Vs Sarita Chouhan and ors. .….Respondent Through: Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Assistant Counsel vice Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (28.01.2026) 01. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking implementation of order dated 04.06.2019 passed by the writ court whereby a direction has been issued to respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition having regard to communication dated 29.05.2019 addressed by Director School Education, Jammu to Commissioner/Secretary to Government, School Education Department. 02. A series of statement of facts have been filed by the respondents and as per the latest statement of facts filed by the respondents, the case of the petitioner has been considered in Serial No. 45 Regular List 2 CCP(S) No. 549/2019 compliance to the order of the writ court whereafter upon verification of service record of the petitioner, his pension case was submitted to Principal Accountant General, J&K. It has been further submitted that PPO No. 1123183776 dated 27.12.2023 stands issued in favour of the petitioner and all pensionary benefits in his favour have been sanctioned. 03. Grievance of the petitioner is that while settling the case of the petitioner, the respondents have treated the intervening period i.e., from 16.03.2019 to 31.08.2020 on leave of whatever kind due to him thereby depriving him of the benefit of leave salary. In this regard, the Chief Education Officer has issued orders dated 21.09.2022 and 28.09.2022. 04. So far as the direction of the writ court is concerned, the same mandates the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and while doing so, communication dated 29.05.2019 issued by Director School Education, Jammu was to be taken into consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that vide said communication, Director School Education, Jammu had, after supplying relevant documents pertaining to the petitioner to the Administrative Department, sought further necessary instructions in the matter. 05. It is pursuant to aforesaid communication that on the instructions of the Administrative Department, the respondents have treated the period of absence of the petitioner from duty as 3 CCP(S) No. 549/2019 leave of whatever kind due to him. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the said decision of the respondents, the only option available to him is to assail the same by way of appropriate proceedings. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Contempt of Courts Act cannot render a finding with regard to the validity of said order. Once the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and passed an order, the order of the writ court stands complied with. Therefore, the contempt proceedings do not survive. 06. The same are accordingly closed leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedy as may be available under law. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 28.01.2026 Naresh/Secy Naresh Kumar 2026.01.15 05:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document