HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CPSW No. 731/2017 in SWP No. 2069/2002 Surinder Singh …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate Q Vs S.P. Vaid and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 12.11.2025 1. In the instant contempt petition, petitioner herein has alleged non- compliance of order dated 15.10.2016 passed in SWP No. 2069/2002, whereby the respondents came to be directed to pass a fresh order of consideration qua the case of the petitioner for regularisation taking into account the order of the Division Bench passed in LPASW No. 115/2002 titled as “State of J&K and others vs. Niaz Ahmed and others” as also ignoring the rejection order dated 30.07.2002, in terms whereof, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation had been rejected, which rejection order, had been called-in-question by the petitioner in the writ petition (supra). 2. Respondents/contemnors have filed multiple statement of facts/compliance reports in response to the instant contempt petition and last one on 01.11.2025 which is also accompanied with an order of consideration bearing No. 4264/2025 dated 28.10.2025, wherein, it is being inter-alia stated that the petitioner came to be engaged as a Daily Rated Worker in Sher-i-Kashmir Police Academy, Udhampur w.e.f., 26.03.1993 for a period of 85 days and was thereafter S. No. 45 2 CPSW No. 731/2017 in SWP No. 2069/2002 disengaged on 08.02.1997 on account of his un-authorized absence from duties and thereafter re-engaged on 05.03.1997 after 25 days of break and subsequently disengaged on 15.12.1998 on account of his involvement in misconduct and again re-engaged on 25.08.1999 and thereafter disengaged on 30.07.2002 in accordance with the instructions of the Finance Department. It is also stated that the petitioner (who died during the pendency of contempt petition) has not continuously worked as a Daily Rated Worker and, as such, did not fulfil the eligibility prescribed as contained in rules 4 & 5 of SRO 64 of 1994 and, as such, the services of the petitioner could not be regularized and the claim set up by the petitioner was accordingly rejected. 3. Perusal of the order, non-compliance of which has been complained off, inasmuch as, the case set up by the petitioner in the petition coupled with the statement of facts/compliance report filed by the respondents on 01.11.2025 including the consideration order dated 28.10.2025, manifestly reveal that the respondents have accorded consideration to the case of the petitioner in tune with the order complained off, thus necessitating the closure of the contempt proceeding. 4. Ordered accordingly. 5. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to work out a remedy against the consideration order, if cause available and is so advised. (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge Jammu 12.11.2025 Rahul Sharma