HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP (D) No. 05/2020 in LPASW No. 119/2016 Reserved On: 11th of February, 2025 Pronounced On: 13th of February, 2025 Ghulam Muhammad Bhat … Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr Z. A. Shah, Senior Advocate with Mr A. Hanan, Advocate. V/s Shahid Iqbal Choudhary and Ors. … Respondent(s) Through: - Mr Ilyas Nazir Laway, Government Advocate with Mr Younis Hafiz, Assisting Counsel. CORAM: Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge Hon’ble Mr Justice Puneet Gupta, Judge (JUDGMENT) Sanjeev Kumar-J: 01. This is a Petition for seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Respondents for their willful disobedience and non- compliance of the Judgment dated 6th of July, 2018 passed by this Court in LPASW No. 119/2016, whereby this Court has, while disposing of the appeal, directed the competent authority under SRO 520 of 2017 to consider the claim of the Petitioner for regularization by a speaking Order. 02. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this Contempt Petition are that the Petitioner was engaged as Gardener on 23rd of March, 2001 on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.1,500/-. The said remuneration was increased from time to time. 03. In the year 2011, a process for regularization of the services of the Petitioner was initiated by the Respondents, but the same did not reach CCP (D) No. 05/2020 in LPASW No. 119/2016 its logical end. The Petitioner filed SWP No. 1737/2012, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 24th of May, 2013, with a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization of his services. 04. The claim of the Petitioner was considered by the Respondents and vide Order dated 15th of September, 2015, the same was rejected on the ground that the case of the Petitioner was not covered under the J&K Special Provisions Act, 2010 (“the Act of 2010”). 05. The aforesaid consideration Order was, again, challenged by the Petitioner in SWP No. 2471/2015, which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 28th of March, 2016, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar to appoint the Petitioner on a Class-IV post. 06. This Judgment of the Writ Court dated 28th of March, 2016 was assailed by the State in LPASW No. 119/2016. The appeal filed by the State was allowed vide Judgment dated 6th of July, 2018 and the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 28th of March, 2016 was set aside, however, a direction was issued to the competent authority under SRO 520 of 2017 to consider the claim of the Petitioner for regularization of his services by a speaking Order. 07. When the case of the Petitioner was not considered by the Respondents in compliance with the Judgment passed by this Court, the instant Contempt Petition was filed by the Petitioner. 08. The Respondents filed Compliance Reports from time to time, but same were not accepted by this Court. Lastly, in compliance with the Order dated 11th of December, 2023 passed in these proceedings, the matter was re-considered by the Respondents through a Committee headed by Additional Secretary to the Government, Department of Planning, Development and Monitoring, which was constituted vide Government Order No. 05-JK(PD&MD) of 2024 dated 4th of March, 2024. On the basis of the conclusions arrived at by the Committee, the Respondents, vide CCP (D) No. 05/2020 in LPASW No. 119/2016 Government Order No. 54-JK(PD&MD) of 2024 dated 8th of May, 2024, passed a detailed speaking Order and rejected the claim of the Petitioner for regularization of his services, being devoid of merit. 09. The claim of the Petitioner for regularization of his services in terms of SRO 520 of 2017 has been rejected on, in as many as, six grounds. It is true and we agree with the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that some of the grounds mentioned in the consideration Order to justify the rejection of the claim of the Petitioner are absurd and palpably wrong, however, some of the grounds do raise debatable questions of law. For instance, the Respondents have, in the consideration Order, stated that the Petitioner, having been engaged on consolidated basis, was being paid from contingency fund and, therefore, was not covered by SRO 520 of 2017. 10. It is not in dispute and, as a matter of fact, a clear stand was taken by the State before the Writ Court that the engagement of the Petitioner as Gardener on consolidated remuneration of Rs. 1,500/- per month was by debit to office expenses and that the wages were being paid out of contingency grant. The Division Bench, in the Judgment which is allegedly not complied with by the Respondents, has also noted this stand of the Respondents. 11. The plea of Mr Z. A. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner, that the source of fund, from where the wages are paid, is not a determining factor to conclude that such an employee is a contingent paid worker. We do not wish to enter in this aspect of the matter, as the same would tantamount to determining a new question, that too, in the contempt proceedings. 12. Prima facie, the stand of the Respondents is substantiated by Rule 3 (2) (i) of SRO 520 of 2017, which reads as under: “Person engaged in any Department as part-time, contingent paid worker or any other worker drawing wages at rates lesser than the daily wage rates notified/ sanctioned by the Government from time to time.” CCP (D) No. 05/2020 in LPASW No. 119/2016 From reading of the reproduced Rule, it is abundantly clear that the persons engaged with the Department as part-time or contingent paid workers, as also the other workers drawing wages at rates lesser than the daily-wage rates notified by the Government from time to time, are not covered by SRO 520 of 2017. 13. It is a specific plea taken by the Respondents in the Reply Affidavit filed before the Writ Court that the Petitioner was a contingent paid worker and, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the Rules. Neither the Writ Court nor the Division Bench of this Court determined the aforesaid issue and the same cannot, now, be raised before us in these contempt proceedings. Whether or not the Petitioner can be construed to be a contingent paid worker is a question which needs to be determined by a Writ Court and cannot be made the subject matter of adjudication in the contempt proceedings. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the passing of the consideration Order dated 8th of May, 2024 (supra), the case of the Petitioner for regularization of his services stands considered under SRO 520 of 2017 and, therefore, we do not find any willful disobedience and non-compliance of the Judgment passed by this Court on part of the Respondents. 15. This Contempt Petition is, accordingly, closed, leaving it open to the Petitioner to work out his remedy against the Government Order No. 54-JK(PD&MD) of 2024 dated 8th of May, 2024 in accordance with law. (Puneet Gupta) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge SRINAGAR February 13th, 2025 “TAHIR” i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes/ No. Tahir Manzoor Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document