S. No. 71 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) No.355/2024 In WP(C) No. 1747/2024 Ms. Namy Jan …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate Vs. B.K. Singh and another ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 30.07.2025 1. This contempt petition arises out of interim order dated 07.08.2024, passed in WP(C) No.1747/202, whereby status quo with regard to the services of petitioner had been directed to be maintained provided she was not disengaged. 2. In their compliance report, respondents have stated that petitioner was much before passing of aforesaid order dated 07.08.2024, disengaged from services pursuant to the directions given in the meeting held on 04.12.2023 and communicated to petitioner vide communication No.DFOG/Estt/192-201 dated 28.02.2024 and, therefore, as on the date of passing of the order by this Court on 07.08.2024, petitioner stood disengaged and consequently disobedience of the status quo with respect to services of petitioner does not arise at all. 3. Attention of this Court has been invited to the fact that in the main writ petition, petitioner has prayed to allow her to discharge her duties and release her alleged salary on consolidated basis, and that the said relief falls within the domain of Central Administrative Tribunal as is provided under Section 14 of the Central Administrative Act. 4. To the contention of respondents, it is averment of learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Bhat Fayaz Ahmad, that petitioner had already been before the Tribunal with her gravamen, which reached upto the level of preference of a review petition, being RA no.03. of 2023 qua Order dated 11.01.2023. On consideration thereof, the Tribunal vide Order dated 21.03.2023 (Annexure I to CM no.2342/2025) directed respondents to reconsider petitioner’s case under J&K Civil Services Special Provisions Act, 2010 within two months. In such circumstances, as is stoutly urged by Mr. Bhat Fayaz, petitioner’s case as exhorted in the writ petition before this Court has been set at rest and needs to be disposed of, accordingly. 5. If that being the position, the proceedings are dropped and contempt is closed. And writ petition WP(C) No.1747/2024 is, as such, disposed of on the above line. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 30.07.2025 Shabroz