S. No.5 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CPSW No.533/2017 in[SWP No.908/2017] FAROOQ AHMAD SHEIKH ... Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr.Syed Manzoor, Advocate. Vs. MR. SANDEEP KUMAR NAIK AND ANR …Respondent(s) Through: - Mr.Syed Musaib, Dy.AG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 28.02.2025 1) The petitioner through the medium of present petition is seeking implementation of order dated 22.05.2017 passed by the writ Court, whereby a direction was issued to the respondents to examine and consider the claim of the petitioner on the analogy of the judgment delivered by this Court in SWP No.2152/2014 on 06.03.2017 and take a decision within eight weeks. 2) Fresh compliance report has been filed by the respondents in which it has been submitted that they have complied with the judgment of the writ Court and have passed a consideration order No.69/DS/JK/2017 dated 26.09.2017, whereby claim of the petitioner has been rejected. CPSW No. 533/2017 in [SWP No. 908/2017] P a g e | 2 of 3 3) It appears that on an earlier occasion during the pendency of these Contempt proceedings, the aforesaid consideration order was found to be in tune with the order of the writ Court and, accordingly, the contempt proceedings were closed vide order dated 13.03.2019. However, on a review petition filed by the contempt petitioners, the aforesaid order was reviewed on the ground that no details are provided in the order of rejection, qua the status of the petitioner with those in SWP No.2152/2014 and the contempt petition was restored to its original number. 4) In the fresh compliance report, the respondents have relied upon the same consideration order dated 26.09.2017, but they have explained in their compliance report that the petitioner’s case has no parity with the petitioner in SWP No.2152/2014. It has been submitted that the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition has been regularized purely on the strength of Court direction and the documents produced by him. It has been further explained that the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition, namely Shri Naba Lone was engaged in the year 1986, while as the petitioner in the instant case was verbally asked to work as casual/seasonal labourer in the year 1997. According to the respondents the services of the petitioner were utilized as casual/seasonal labourer as and when required for a specific job, hence he has no comparison CPSW No. 533/2017 in [SWP No. 908/2017] P a g e | 3 of 3 with Shri Naba Lone whose services were regularized and, as such, the contempt petitioner cannot claim any discrimination. 5) In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, it becomes clear that they have differentiated the case of the petitioner from the case of Shri Naba Lone, who happens to be petitioner in SWP No.2152/2014. It will not be open to this Court in these proceedings to determine the legality of consideration order dated 26.09.2017 having regard to the facts and circumstances explained by the respondents in their fresh compliance report. If at all the petitioner has any grievance against the said order, he is at liberty to challenge the same by way of appropriate proceedings. 6) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the present contempt petition. Thus the proceedings are closed and the contempt petition is disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 28.02.2025 Sarveeda Nissar Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 01.03.2025 17:49