HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU LPA No.05/2024 CM No.298/2024 UT of J&K ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. S.S. Nanda, Sr. AAG. V/s Mohd. Ashraf & Ors. ….Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Irfaan Khan, Advocate. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE ORDER (10.02.2025) 01. The present LPA has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 04.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CCP(S) No.283/2020. 02. Before going into the merits of this appeal, it is necessary to refer to the principal order under compliance. The said order whose compliance is being sought for by the respondents by way of contempt petition is order dated 29.03.2019 passed in SWP No.660/2019. In that case, the respondents herein were the petitioners who were engaged as daily rated workers on 01.03.1989 and had been working continuously since then. It was prayed in that petition that the respondents herein were eligible for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. It was also submitted that the cases of the petitioners were recommended by the Empowered Committee to respondent No.1 for their placements but nothing has been done so far. Thereafter, in paragraph 3 of the said order, the learned Single Judge holds thus, Sr.No. 35 2 “Keeping in view the submissions made and nature of relief prayed for this petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.1 to consider the cases of the petitioners for their regularizations in terms of SRO-64 of 1994 and take a final decision as may be from the date, a certified copy of this order is made available to him. It is, however, made clear that no opinion is expressed on the eligibility or otherwise of petitioners for their regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. The respondent No.1 shall be within his right to scan their records find out as to whether the petitioners are eligible for regularization in terms of SRO 64 or not.” 03. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that pursuant to the said order being passed, a decision was taken on 10.03.2023 in compliance to the aforementioned order, an elaborate speaking order was passed by the appellant herein, whereby the case of the respondents was considered in the backdrop of the relevant SRO 64 and was rejected. This order came to be passed when the contempt petition was pending. The appellant herein before the learned Single Judge drew the attention of this Court to the order dated 10.03.2023 and submitted that there had been compliance with the order passed by the learned Single Judge for whose enforcement the contempt petition was filed. The impugned order has been passed after appreciating the so called compliance by the State. The learned Single Judge considered the compliance report filed by the appellant herein after appreciating the law on the subject wherein it held that the rejection was without any legal justification and that the appellant had taken into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘State of Karnataka V. Uma Devi’, AIR 2006 SC 1806, which, in the opinion of the learned Single Judge, was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 04. Once the substantial compliance of the order under enforcement is apparent, the correctness or the legality of that order ought not to be seen by the 3 contemnors. Moreso, as the order sought to be enforced made it very clear that the learned Single Judge was not dwelling on the merits of the case and had made it clear that the respondents (appellant herein) should take a decision on their own on the basis of the merits of the case. 05. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the appellant herein has taken that decision if that decision does not need the requirement of law and is incorrect, the same may give rise to a fresh cause of action to the respondents to file a fresh writ petition in assailing that order and getting it set aside and showing afresh why a specific writ of mandamus must be issued as the outcome of the earlier round of litigation was inconclusive forcing the respondents to approach this Court afresh. The incorrectness or correctness of the order passed by the appellant herein in compliance of the principal order cannot be a deciding factor whether or not, the order under compliance has been complied with or not. 06. Under the circumstances the present appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside which necessarily brings an end to CCP(S) No.283/2020. However, the liberty/right of the respondents to prefer a fresh petition against the decision taken by the appellant herein is protected. 07. The appeal stands disposed of. (RAJESH SEKHRI) (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE JUDGE Jammu 10.02.2025 Eva