HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- CCP (S) No. 160/2022 in WP (C) No. 727/2022 Mushtaq Ahmed …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate. Vs Ashok Kumar Pamar, Principal Secretary, PHE and Irrigation and Flood Control Department and Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER (07.03.2025) 1. The instant contempt petition has been preferred for willful disobedience of the order passed by the writ Court dated 01.04.2022 in WP (C) No. 727 of 2022, by virtue of which, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date copy of the said order was made available to the respondents. 2. Since the aforesaid order was not complied with within period prescribed, the petitioner has preferred the instant contempt petition. 3. The detailed compliance report has been filed by the respondents, in which they have taken a specific stand that the case of the petitioner has been considered and rejected vide Order No. 65-E of 2024 dated 13.02.2024. The reasons, which have been spelled out in the order of rejection are that the petitioner was not working at any site and, thus, his case stood rejected for the reason that no attendance/muster sheet have been submitted to the Divisional Office from the Sub-Divisional Office. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. S. No. 36 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH 5. Since the detailed speaking order has been passed, by virtue of which, the claim of the petitioner has been considered and rejected, no fruitful purpose will be served to keep this contempt petition alive, as the order passed by the learned writ Court stands complied with. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, the proceedings in the contempt petition are closed. Rule, if any, shall stand discharged. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the aforesaid order by seeking appropriate remedy, if so advised. (WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE JAMMU 07.03.2025 Ram Krishan Ram Krishan 2025.03.10 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document