Sr. No. 20 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CPSW No. 183/2012 in SWP No. 706/2012 Mohd. Saleem …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Vikas Mangotra, Advocate V/s Vinod Niranjan, Pr. Chief. C. Forest and another …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE ORDER 29.08.2025 At the very outset, on 30.03.2012 the writ petition bearing SWP No. 706/2012, was disposed of at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to petitioner’s case for regularization in accordance with law and to take decision within four weeks’ time from the date the order was provided to them by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date, the aforesaid order has not been complied with, thereby constraining the petitioner to file the instant contempt petition. In the response to the contempt filed, learned counsel for the respondents has filed statement of facts. In the compliance report filed, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner was considered and order No.308G-JK(FST) dated 20.12.2024 was issued. It has been found that the petitioner was not entitled to the regularization and his claim has been __________ rejected. What was required by the respondents was to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. The statement of facts and the record of the respondents makes it clear that the claim of the petitioner has been duly considered and rejected, therefore, order stands complied with. In view of the above, proceedings in this contempt petition stand closed. However, in case the petitioner is aggrieved of the consideration order, he is at liberty to challenge the same. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Jammu: 29.08.2025 Shafqat