S. No.14 Regular ,,,HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S)No.593/2021 in SWP No. 454/2016 \ SHAHZAD AHMAD GANIE …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Tehjud Hussain,Advocate. V/s SANJEEV VERMA AND ORS. … ..Respondent(s) Through :Ms Maha Majeed, Assistant Cousel CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 17.04.2026 1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition is seeking implementation of order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the writ Court, whereby a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of communication addressed to Secretary to Government, Forest Department Civil Secretariate Jammu by respondent No.3. 2. Compliance report stands filed by the respondents, wherein it has been submitted that the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his service has been considered by the respondents and the same has been rejected in terms of consideration order dated 20.02.2023. A copy of the said order has been placed on record alongwith the statement of facts. CCP(S) No.593/2021 2 | P a g e 3. A perusal of the consideration order dated 20.02.2023 would reveal that the respondents have taken a stand that communication dated 05.01.2015 produced by the petitioner to support his claim for regularization was found to be forged, as the original communication dated 05.01.2015 addressed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to the Administrative Department did not contain name of the petitioner at Serial No.70 or any other Serial No. It has been submitted that the petitioner has filed the writ petition on the basis of a forged document. 4. The petitioner has filed response to the statement of facts filed by the respondents. In the said response it has been submitted that communication dated 05.01.2015 is not forged one but in fact it is the respondents who have filed a false affidavit. 5. The issue as to whether the communication dated 05.01.2015, on which the petitioner has based his claim relating to his regularization is genuine or forged one, cannot be gone into by this Court in these proceedings. Respondents have taken a definite stand that the name of the petitioner does not figure in the original communication whereby recommendation for regularization of daily rated workers was made and on that basis they have rejected the claim of the petitioner. CCP(S) No.593/2021 3 | P a g e 6. If at all the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the rejection order, the appropriate remedy for him is to challenge the said consideration order. Once the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner and passed a consideration order thereon, which may have gone against the petitioner, the judgment of the writ Court stands complied with. Therefore, proceedings against the respondents are closed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy. Contempt petition is disposed of. (SANJAYDHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 17.04.2026 Sarveeda Nissar 1. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 18.04.2026 16:49