HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case No. CCP (S) No. 285/2022 in WP (C) No. 451/2021 Mohinder Singh …..Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Rohit Bhlawal, Advocate. Vs Vijay Kumar Biduri and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. S.S.Nanda, Sr. AAG. Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 17.02.2025 1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has alleged non-compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 07.04.2022, whereby the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with rules in vogue preferably within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is furnished to the respondents, the operative portion of which is as under:- “Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with rules in vogue preferably within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is furnished to the respondents.” 2. Respondents have filed the statement of facts, wherein, it is stated that the work namely “Constt. Of Tractor Road at Sungrio was approved and work order was issued in favour of Panchayat Secretary, Chana B vide work Order No. BDOC/2017-18/96-100 dated 04.01.2018 with an estimated cost of Rs.3.00 lacs”. The said road was completed and payment of Rs.3.00 lacs has been disbursed in favour of the petitioner. However, the petitioner has been seeking extra payment of Rs.7.37 lacs against the extra work done on ground claimed to have been executed by the petitioner. It is stated that additional work done claimed to have been executed by the Sr. No. 78 2 CCP (S) No. 285/2022 in WP (C) No. 451/2021 petitioner was neither in any plan nor there is any administrative approval of the same. Moreover, no work order has been issued/allotted by the answering department for the additional work claimed to have been executed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the order/judgment passed by this Court has been complied with in its letter & spirit. 4. The contempt proceedings are, accordingly, closed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the same, if he desires. (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge Jammu : 17.02.2025 Pawan Chopra Pawan Chopra 2025.02.18 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document