Sr. No. 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) PIL 24/2017 ALL J AND K LADAKH TEACHER FEDERATION …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mudasir Zubair, Advocate Vs. STATE TH.EDUCATION DEPTT.AND ANR. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE O R D E R 21-07-2025 1. On 29.04.2025, this Court had passed the following order: “Although, the status report on behalf of Union Territory of Ladakh, in terms of order dated March 26, 2025, has not been submitted, but Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI submits that the previous reports furnished would sufficiently indicate that the authorities have substantially executed the task they were assigned with. It’s work in progress. Be that as it may, he submits that the latest status report shall be filed three days prior to the adjourned date with advance copy to the counsel for the petitioner. Similarly, our attention is drawn to the affidavit dated December 4, 2024, filed on behalf of the Administrative Department (School Education), in compliance to the order dated August 12, 2024, passed by this Court. And, with reference to the table drawn at paragraph 6, which shows the details of work and its current status, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities, indeed, have nearly executed the works as regards boundary walls, boys’ toilets, girls’ toilets, CWSN toilets in different schools. But still, in certain primary and secondary schools, the work is still pending, though, the expected timeline to execute all pending works ended in March, 2025. That being so, Mr. S.S Nanda, learned Sr. AAG prays for a short accommodation to furnish a specific affidavit, indicating as to the precise time that would be required to conclusively execute all pending works. May do so, three days prior to the adjourned date, with advance copy to the counsel for the petitioner.” 2. Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG, submits that in compliance to order referred to above, a fresh status report/affidavit has since been filed on behalf of the Education Department: Year of sanction Component No. of schools/works sanctioned Funds released Expenditure Completed/ closed In progress Expected time line Overall percentage of completed works 2018-19 Boundary wall 544 2867.17 2272.64 530 14 Aug.2025 92.89% 2018-19 Boys Toilet 272 436.22 323.15 269 3 July 2025 2018-19 Girls Toilet 136 154.97 118.02. 135 1 July 2025 2019-20 Boundary wall 824 3474.30 2621.10 749 75 Sept.2025 2019-20 CWSN Toilets 544 1041.64 705.79 508 36 August 2025 2020-21 Boundary Wall 269 1803.33 1210.98 234 35 August 2025 2020-21 CWSN Toilets 172 408.31 249.73 142 30 Aug. 2025 2020-21 Girls Toilets 40 75.31 61.14 35 5 July 2025 Total 2801 2602 199 3. Accordingly, it is submitted that pursuant to the instructions issued by the Government as regards execution of work costing up to Rs. 5.00 lacs from the Rural Development Department for the year 2024-25, the process of shifting the works from PWD to RDD had taken time. As a result, the work could not be concluded up to March 2025. Though, 92% of the works has been executed up to March, 2025. 4. Accordingly, it is submitted that various status reports/affidavits that have been filed on behalf of the authorities show that the petition has fully served its purpose and the intent of the department to carry out its obligations cannot be doubted. 5. Not just that, he submits that every possible effort is being made to accelerate and execute the remaining works at the earliest. 6. In response, Mr. Pranav Kohli, learned Senior Counsel as always submits that in the wake of the position indicated above, the proceedings in the present petition be closed. However, he submits that in the event the pending works as regards the Union territory of Jammu & Kashmir as also the Union territory of Ladakh are not executed within a reasonable time or in the event of any inaction at the end of the authorities, the appellant be granted liberty to file a fresh petition. 7. In the wake of above and in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the respective parties, the proceedings in the present case are closed. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 8. However, in the event any fresh cause of action arises or the authorities fail to execute the remaining works within a reasonable time, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court by filing a fresh petition. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 21-07-2025 Aadil