1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE) CCP(S) No. 441/2022 Bilal Ahmad Wani ..... Petitioner (s) Through :- Mr. Irshad Ahmed Advocate. V/s Shri Shalinder Kumar and ors .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Syed Musaib Dy.AG. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 1 Through the medium of present contempt petition, the petitioner is seeking implementation of judgment/order dated 12.08.2015, passed by the Writ Court, whereby the impugned order of termination of the petitioner from service, dated 14.02.2002, was set aside, and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to résumé his duties. It was also provided in the said order that the respondents shall be free to initiate an inquiry against the petitioner regarding his unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f February 1999, in accordance with the rules. 2 The compliance report stands filed by the respondents in which it has been submitted that after the passing of the aforesaid order by the Writ Court, the petitioner was allowed to join his duties, and an inquiry was conducted against him, where-after, on the basis of report of the Inquiry Officer, the period of unauthorized absence of the petitioner was treated as ‘on duty’ and, in this regard, a detailed Government Order bearing Sr. No. 17 No. 287-PW(R&B) of 2018, dated 23.04.2015 stands already issued. A copy of the said order has been placed on record along with the compliance report. 3 In the petition, it has been submitted that case of the petitioner for grant of promotion, in terms of the mandate of the judgment and the inquiry report, is not being considered by the respondents despite the petitioner having filed a representation with them, and that his juniors are being continuously promoted. 4 Vide the judgment of the Writ Court, only termination of the petitioner was set aside and it was directed that he be allowed to resume his duties. The judgment to this extent has been implemented, and the respondents, in terms of the judgment of the Writ Court, have already held an inquiry, where-after, the petitioner has been treated to be ‘on duty’ during the period of his absence. 5 The question whether or not the petitioner is entitled to promotion is a separate cause of action, for which the present proceedings would not lie. The proceedings are, therefore, closed, and the contempt petition is disposed of accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy against his alleged supersession. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 03.02.2025 Sanjeev