CCP(S) No. 87/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CCP(S) No. 87/2020 in SWP No. 678/2019 Pronounced on:02.02.2026 Uploaded on: 03.02.2026 Jagjeet Kour ….Petitioners Through:- Mr. Surinder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Khajuria, Advocate. V/s Sudarshan Kumar, Director General Rural Development Department, Jammu. …..Respondents Through:- Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Assisting counsel vice Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG. \ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE (ORDER) 02.02.2026 01. The petitioner through the medium of the present petition is seeking implementation of the order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the writ court whereby respondent No. 2 has been directed to consider and decide the claim made by the petitioner in her representation dated 12.02.2019 within a period of four months. 02. The respondents have filed the compliance report wherein it has been submitted that the claim of the petitioner Serial No. 18 Regular List CCP(S) No. 87/2020 for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 was considered and the same has been rejected in terms of consideration order No. 177-DRD of 2022 dated 14.05.2022. A copy of the consideration order has been placed on record by the respondents. 03. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the claim of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents properly as they have only relied upon the decision of the Empowered Committee taken in its 8th meeting on 19.08.2015 whereas, in terms of the order of the writ court passed on 01.04.2019, the respondents were obliged to consider the matter afresh in the light of the claim projected by the petitioner in her representation dated 12.02.2019. 04. If we have a look at the consideration order dated 14.05.2022, it is correct that the respondents have made reference to decision of Empowered Committee taken on 19.08.2015 but it is clearly indicated in the consideration order that the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been considered again by the respondents and has been found devoid of merit as the regularization of casual labourers does not come under the purview of SRO 64 of 1994. 05. According to the petitioner, she was not a casual labourer but she was a daily rated worker. The issue whether the petitioner was a casual labourer or a daily rated worker cannot be gone into while exercising jurisdiction under CCP(S) No. 87/2020 Contempt of Courts Act. If at all the petitioner has any grievance in this regard, she has to take resort to appropriate legal remedy. 06. Once the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner, the direction passed by the writ court stands complied with. The contempt proceedings, therefore, do not survive. The same are, accordingly closed and the petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to take resort to appropriate legal remedy against the consideration order dated 14.05.2022. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 02.02.2026 Naresh/Secy. Naresh Kumar 2026.01.19 07:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document