S.No. 67 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) 43/2025 in[WP(C) 2028/2021] GHULAM MOHAMMAD BHAT AND ANR. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. F.A. Bhat, Advocate Vs. SH.SHAILENDRA KUMAR AND ORS (AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT) AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. A.R. Malik, Sr. AAG with Ms. Rahila Khan, Advocate CORAM:HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI,JUDGE ORDER 30-08-2025 1. The petitioners have alleged non-compliance of judgement dated 03.06.2024, whereby writ petition WP (C) No. 2028/2021 has been disposed of with the following directions: “Be that as it may, the petitioners' engagement, working and continuation have not been denied by the respondents up to the year 2011 and notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have not prayed for a relief for regularisation of their service, this Court deems it appropriate to mould the relief sought in the petition having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for the regularisation of their services under and in terms of the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994 or alternatively in terms of the provisions of SRO 520 of 2017 and take a decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced by the petitioners before the respondents and, in the process of said consideration, provide an opportunity to the petitioners to support their claim for continuation as also regularisation as directed above.” 2. Compliance report stands filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated that in compliance with the aforesaid judgment, the claim of the petitioners was considered and they were afforded an opportunity of being heard in adherence to the principles of natural justice. However, the petitioners failed to produce documents substantiating their claim for regularisation. Accordingly, a detailed consideration order dated 28.12.2024 was passed, whereby the claim of the petitioners was examined and found devoid of merit and, therefore, rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment of the writ court has been implemented in its letter and spirit by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 4. In view of the above, the proceedings in the present contempt petition are closed and rule, if any, stands discharged. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the consideration order dated 28.12.2024 in appropriate proceedings. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 30-08-2025 Mubashir