33 Regular HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) 361/2021 in[SWP 1631/2012]. ZAFFAR AHMAD JAN AND ORS. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. F.A. Bhat, Advocate. VERSUS SANJEEV VERMA AND ORS. Through: Ms. Nadia Abdullah, Assisting Counsel. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 30.07.2025 01. Through the medium of present petition, the petitioners are seeking implementation of order dated 19.03.2013, whereby a direction was issued to the respondents to accord consideration to the case of the petitioners in the light of the averments made in the writ petition and in accordance with rules governing the field. 02. As per the compliance report filed by the respondents, claim of the petitioners was considered, and consideration order bearing No. 264- JK(FST) of 2024 dated 20.11.2024 came to be issued by the respondents whereby their claim has been rejected on account of the fact that there are breaks in service as daily wagers of the petitioners and as such they do not fulfill the criteria as laid down in SRO 64 for their regularization. 03. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed response to the compliance report, in which it has been submitted that the stand taken by the respondents that there were breaks in the service of the petitioners is not factually correct. In this regard, the respondents have placed on record a copy of order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bandipora, and they have also placed on record of communication dated 17.06.1999 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, wherein the Chief Conservator of Forests, Kashmir,has been advised to re-engage 94 petitioners. 04. The question whether the petitioners were actuallyre-engaged or whether there were no breaks in their service is a matter which cannot be gone into by this Court in contempt proceedings. The same can be agitated by the petitioners by way of an appropriate proceedings by challenging the consideration order dated 20.11.2024. 05. Once the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioners pursuant to the directions dated 19.03.2013 of the Writ Court, the said order stands complied with. Therefore, the present contempt proceedings are closed, and the petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 30.07.2025 Bisma