Sr. No. 44 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: CPSW 42/2019 in SWP 824/2018 Babu Ram Sharma …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Ajay Bakshi, Advocate V/s Anu Radha Gupta & Anr. ... Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE ORDER 08.09.2025 1. Through the medium of this petition, petitioner has alleged non-compliance of order dated 24.10.2018, passed by this Court in SWP No. 824/2018. 2. Statement of facts/compliance report dated 10.11.2022 has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated therein that due drawn statement has been prepared according to which an amount of ₹28,94,287/- is due to the petitioner w.e.f., 03/2009 till his retirement i.e., 03/2020. The Director School Education, Jammu vide letter No. CEOR/Legal/2022-23/32320 dated 21.10.2022, requested for granting permission for payment of above said amount to the petitioner. It is further submitted that vide letter No. DSEJ/Legal/18827-28 dated 07.11.2022, Director School Education, Jammu sought sanction from the Principal Secretary to Government School Education for release of amount to the tune of ₹ 28,94,287/- as salary in favour of the petitioner. 3. On 10.07.2025, a fresh Status report has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that a four member Committee was -2- constituted to inquire the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that on being called, the petitioner appeared before the Committee members on 21.06.2025 and filed a written statement to the effect that the salary for the month of January 2023 was drawn and credited into his account. It is further submitted that salary w.e.f., June 2012 to January 2013 is disputed, therefore, after examining the matter it comes to fore that salary of only six month is to be verified. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner would be provided all the consequential benefits to which he was entitled under Rules, however, he submits that an amount of ₹ 61,790/- is to be recovered from the petitioner as the same has been paid in excess which is liable to be recovered and deposit into Government treasury. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondents are at liberty to deduct the aforesaid excess amount. 6. I have perused the record as well as statement of facts/compliance report. From the above, it is clear that the direction contained in the judgment dated 24.10.2018, stands complied with. 7. As nothing survives for adjudication in the present contempt petition, accordingly, the proceedings in the instant contempt petition are closed. 8. In the event, petitioner’s grievance is not redressed by the respondents, petitioner can approach this Court by taking an appropriate legal remedy as admissible. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE Jammu 08.09.2025 AKHILESH