S. No. 31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) 165/2021 in[SWP 1345/2005] GHULAM NABI DHOOBI and Anr. …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Zaffar Mehdi, Advocate. Vs. ARUN MANHAS MANAGING DIR. JANDK AGRO INDUSTRIES DEV. CORP. LTD ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy.AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 10.03.2025 1. In the instant contempt petition, petitioner herein has complained non- compliance of order dated 26.12.2011 passed in SWP No. 1345/2005, which petition came to be disposed of on the similar lines as which SWP No. 1536/2006 titled as “Ravinder Kumar Bhan Vs. Managing director and Ors”., came to be disposed of. 2. A compliance report has been filed by respondents wherein it is being stated that in furtherance of the order passed by this Court a Committee was constituted on 22.10.2019 to examine the case of the petitioner which Committee after taking into consideration all aspects of the case recommended re-fixation of pay of the petitioner in the capacity of Supervisor retrospectively from 02/1984 notionally and with arrears from 07/1993 up to 11/2011 and that on account of the said fixation done an amount of Rs.1,93,090/- was worked out payable to the petitioner 1, however, no such fixation qua the petitioner 2 was done due to oversight which, however, came to be later done and an amount of Rs.2,33,267/- was worked out to be payable to the petitioner 2 as well. It is being further stated that since the petitioner have retired under GHSS/VRS Scheme, the revised claim of the ex-official was to be paid by the Administrative Department i.e. the Agricultural Production Department, while stating further that the Managing Director of the Corporation has forward the revised claim of the ex- official to the Administrative Department vide letter dated 08.11.2019 and that the Administrative Department, however, directed the Corporation to meet out the claim of the petitioners from available source, however, the Corporation on account of paucity of funds decided to pay to the petitioners in installments. It is lastly stated that the claim was calculated as per 5th Pay Commission as the 6th Pay Commission was implemented in the Corporation in the month of August 2013 prospectively. 3. Having regard to the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents in the compliance report inasmuch as the order non-compliance of which is alleged in the instant contempt petition, seemingly respondents/contemnors have complied with the said order. 4. Accordingly, contempt notices issued are recalled and contempt proceedings are closed leaving it open to the petitioners to work out the future course of action in the matter, if the petitioners are dissatisfied with the stand of the respondents/contemnors. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 10.03.2025 Ishaq