S. No. 72 Suppl. Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 242/2025 CM No. 3820/2025 Employees of Irrigation Division Budgam through Gh. Rasool Ganie and Anr. …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Hilal Ahmad Wani, Advocate Vs. Abdul Rashid Muqeem and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 01.07.2025 1. The petitioners, who are not party to the proceedings pending before the Court of Principal District Judge, Budgam (for short “the Trial Court”), have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashment of Order dated 22.04.2025 passed by Trial Court, whereby Account Head bearing No.I, 2701 Salary Account M&R and Account No.II, 2702, of the defendant Nos. 3 & 4, i.e. Superintending Engineer, Irrigation & Flood Control, Circle Budgam, and Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Ompora Budgam, maintained in Treasury, Budgam, have been frozen with a further stipulation to the Treasury Officer, Budgam and Manager, J&K Bank, Branch Unit, concerned, not to honour any order of payment in any mode whatsoever of the defendants/non-applicant Nos.3 and 4 till further orders. 2. The short grievance of the petitioners is that they are employees of the Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Budgam and they are not being paid salary because of the order impugned. 3. Perusal of order impugned would reveal that it had been vide order dated 28.05.2016 that the Trial Court had directed the defendant No.3 to make the payment of the amounts which were due to plaintiff under the terms and conditions of NIT on account of the execution of the contract work. Defendant no.3 had challenged the said order dated 28.05.2016 in MA no.143/2017 but he did not succeed as the said appeal was disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to decide the matter expeditiously. Defendants before the Trial Court thereafter again made efforts to evade implementation of the orders, but they were directed by this Court to deposit the amount, which they did not and it is in view of this fact situation that Trial Court has been left with no option but to pass order impugned. 4. The petitioners, instead of approaching the court which has passed the impugned order, have filed this petition, which reflects and suggests proxy of defendants who are adamant not to implement orders passed from time to time. 5. Viewed in the above context it will be futile to keep this petition pending on board and the same is, accordingly, disposed of by providing that in case petitioners make an application, the Trial Court shall consider and decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with law. 6. Disposed of as above. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 01.07.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 02.07.2025 14:28