HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on 28.05.2025 Pronounced on 06.06.2025 CJ Court LPA No. 145/2024 c/w CPSW No. 104/2018 Union Territory of J&K and others …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG v/s Jyoti Devi …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Vishal Goel, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE. JUDGMENT Per Oswal-J CM No. 4086/2024 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the intra court appeal against the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CPSW No. 104/2018. Though the respondent has filed the response but the learned counsel for the non-applicant has submitted that delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the matter be heard on merits. 2. Accordingly, application is allowed. The delay of 147 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The main appeal is taken on board. 2 LPA No. 145/2024 and CPSW No. 104/2018 LPA No. 145/2024 4. Notice. Notice waived by Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Impugned in this intra court appeal is an order dated 18.09.2023 passed in the contempt petition, titled „Jyoti Devi vs. Hardesh Kumar and others‟, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the compliance report filed by the appellants and directed them to comply with the judgment of the writ court. 7. The appellants have impugned the order dated 18.09.2023 on the ground that the order passed by the learned writ court in SWP No. 2509/2016 dated 07.11.2017 was complied with by the appellants in its letter and spirit and the learned Single Judge has also ignored the vital aspect of the case that the husband of the respondent was not a permanent government employee at the time of his death and further had not completed seven years as daily wager in the year 2000 in the Power Development Department, making the claim of the respondent questionable in terms of SRO 43 of 1994. It is also contended that the case of the respondent was different from the case of Veena Devi vs. State of J&K and others(SWP No. 1076/2015, decided on 08.09.2016), as the deceased in the instant case was engaged after March, 1994 and all the daily wagers engaged after March 1994 are to be regularized against the available vacancies in their respective districts after the Cabinet decision No. 151/23/2012 dated 3 LPA No. 145/2024 and CPSW No. 104/2018 30.08.2012. Besides, it is also urged that while rejecting the compliance report, the learned Single Judge has virtually travelled beyond the original order dated 07.11.2017, which was the subject matter of the contempt petition. 8. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG representing appellants has laid much stress that the case of the respondent (writ petitioner) was not identical to the case of Veena Devi (supra), therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right in rejecting the consideration order and directing the appellants to comply with the writ court judgment. He has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has in fact issued new directions beyond the scope of order dated 07.11.2017, while exercising contempt jurisdiction. 9. On the contrary, Mr. Vishal Goel, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that in the response filed before the learned writ court, a specific stand was taken by the appellants that the colleagues of the deceased husband of the respondent were regularized from 01.08.2014 under SRO 64 of 1994 against the available post of Helper in the Power Development Department and the deceased had expired on 21.07.2012 much prior to the availability of the post of regularization. He has further submitted that the case of the respondent is identical to the case of Veena Devi (supra), on the analogy of which the appellants were directed to consider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment. He has vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has passed the detailed reasoned order, and this appeal is not maintainable. 10. Heard and perused the record. 4 LPA No. 145/2024 and CPSW No. 104/2018 11. A perusal of original order dated 07.11.2017 reveals that the respondent had filed a writ petition for commanding the appellants to appoint her on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994 as was done in identical cases. The learned writ court after taking note of the fact that the husband of the respondent was engaged as Daily Wager and while performing his duties as Lineman, as assigned to him, by the appellants, due to electric shock fell from LT Pole in Katra on 21.07.2012 resulting to his death and taking into consideration the reply of the respondents(appellants herein) that the case of the petitioner could not be considered as there was no regular vacancy for the deceased to be considered for regularization to the said post, disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions: “6. As to whether the case of the Daily Wager in the present case will fall on the same parameter is for the government and the department concerned to decide. 7. In the light of the aforesaid decision, the respondents- department is directed to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner if the rules provide for considering such a claim. Further if the Government has acted upon the said judgment, it may consider the present claim to the facts of the present case. Consideration order on all aspects of the matter be passed on its own merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of six to eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 8. Writ petition stands disposed of.” 12. The textural tone and tenor of order dated 07.11.2017 as extracted above, makes it clear that the appellants were to examine the case of the respondent on the analogy of the Veena Devi’s case (supra) provided the said judgment was acted upon by the appellants. 5 LPA No. 145/2024 and CPSW No. 104/2018 13. Pursuant to a query made by this Court, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment in Veena Devi’s case (supra) was complied with and appointment order was issued in favour of Veena Devi. 14. The appellants are, in fact, taking the benefit of observations made in paragraph 6 of the order dated 07.11.2017 as extracted above to contend that the department concerned was left free to decide, but the observations made in paragraph 6 of the order cannot be read in isolation and in fact are required to be read in conjunction with the directions issued in paragraph 7 of order dated 07.11.2017 as extracted above. 15. The appellants came up with a consideration order dated 14.06.2019 stating therein that the husband of the respondent was engaged as Daily Wager after March, 1994, therefore, was required to be regularized against available vacancy in terms of Cabinet Decision dated 13.08.2012. It is further stated in the consideration order dated 14.06.2019 that the deceased was not a permanent Government employee and under SRO 43 of 1994 the claim of the respondent is not maintainable. 16. A perusal of the order passed in Veena Devi’s case(supra) would reveal that in that case also, the deceased was a Daily Wager and was not regularized at the time of his death. The appellants in their objections before the writ court specifically stated that the colleagues of the husband of the respondent were regularized under SRO 64 of 1994. The factum of regularization of the colleagues of the husband of the respondent w.e.f. 01.08.2014 has been admitted in the consideration order also. The husband of 6 LPA No. 145/2024 and CPSW No. 104/2018 the petitioner in Veena Devi‟s case, was also a daily wager, and the petitioner Veena Devi has been appointed under SRO-43 on compassionate grounds. Once Veena Devi has been appointed on compassionate grounds, there cannot be volte-face on the part of the appellants to contend that SRO-43 is applicable only in case of permanent government employee. 17. We have examined the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has considered the distinction drawn by the appellants while rejecting the claim of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds vis a vis Veena Devi’s case (supra) and while rejecting the artificial distinction drawn by the appellants has observed that just because no post was available for his regularization does not mean that the right of regularization had not accrued in his favour. Surprisingly, the colleagues of the husband were regularized in the year 2014 and the appellants nowhere have pleaded that no vacancy is available with them to appoint the respondent on compassionate grounds. 18. Learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the consideration order passed by the appellants as it was solely passed with the aim and objective of rejecting the claim of the respondent on flimsy and unjustifiable grounds. We do not find that the learned Single Judge has acted beyond the scope of order dated 07.11.2017 and has issued fresh directions beyond the scope of order dated 07.11.2017, warranting interference at our end. 7 LPA No. 145/2024 and CPSW No. 104/2018 19. For all what has been said, analyzed and discussed above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed, accordingly. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR: 06.06.2025 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Rakesh Kumar 2025.06.12 08:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document