S. No. 19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) 567/2019 in[SWP 357/2017] RAVINDER KUMAR …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. B. A. Misri, Advocate. Vs. SANJIV MITTAL AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faizan Ahmad Ganie, CGC. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 18.02.2025 1. In the instant contempt petition, the petitioner herein has complained non-compliance of order dated 07.09.2018 passed in SWP No.357/2017 filed by the petitioner which came to be disposed of with the direction to the respondents to accord consideration to the case of the petitioner on the same analogy of the case of Ghulam Hassan Baba who had been granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.09.1993 and was regularized in group “D post” on 17.04.1997 requiring the respondents further that needful be done strictly in accordance with law and rules governing the field. 2. Statement of facts has been filed by the respondents/contemnors to the contempt petition wherein it is being, inter-alia, stated that the petitioner joined in the Defence Pension Disbursement Office Srinagar, as a casual labour on 16.01.1992 and was granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.09.1993, while stating further that in compliance to order passed by this court dated 77.09.2018 in SWP No. 357/2017, the petitioner came to be regularized in “Group C” w.e.f. 02.08.2019 on the same analogy as that of Mr. Gh Hassan Baba, however, the petitioner could not be regularized in the said group w.e.f 17.04.1997 since, the petitioner was not in service with the respondent. It is further stated that the process of regularization of the petitioner stands completed and since the petitioner was not possessed of the minimum qualification as Matric as laid down by the Ministry of Finance under O.M. dated 24.12.2008 and that a training has been imparted to the petitioner to fulfill eligibility criteria for regularization while reiterating that petitioner stands granted appointment in the organization as MTS w.e.f. 02.08.2019. It has been further stated that the petitioner have had also filed a review petition, besides filing the instant contempt petition seeking review of the order passed by this Court on 07.09.2018 whereunder the instant contempt petition has arisen. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Record reveals that the petitioner admittedly have had filed a review petition being 20/2018 on 06.10.2018 which came to be dismissed on 10.11.2021 and maintained the instant contempt petition on 26.12.2019 after the filing of the review petition and has concealed the fact of filing of review petition in the instant contempt petition. 4. Be that as it may, having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances inasmuch as the position obtaining in the matter the respondents/contemnors seemingly have complied with the order, as such, the contempt notice issued is recalled and contempt proceedings are closed. 5. It is made clear that the bailable warrants issued on the previous date of hearing against the respondents/contemnor 3-present incumbent are recalled. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 18.02.2025 Ishaq