HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIR & LADAKH AT JAMMU CCP(S) No. 566/2019 in WP(C) No. 2490/2019 Paramjeet Singh-II …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Pariyat Dagyal, Adv. vs Bashir Ahmed Khan, Provident Fund Commissioner .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy.AG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 07.10.2026 1. Compliance report has been filed by the respondent in which it has been submitted that after coming into effect of the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019, the J&K Employees’ Provident Fund Act, 1961 was repealed and Central Employees Provident Fund(EPF) Act, 1952 was extended to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It has been submitted that those Officers/Officials, who opted for Central Employees’ Provident Fund Office, which includes the petitioner, were relieved from the erstwhile J&K Employees’ Provident Fund Office. It has further been submitted that all the consequential benefits, which have been accrued to the petitioner, pursuant to the rectification of his grade pay, have been released in his favour. 2. It has been submitted that if the petitioner is not being paid consequential benefits after the date of his absorption in the Central 47 Rakesh Kumar 2026.10.09 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Employees’ Provident Fund Office, his claim is against the said organization and not against the respondent. 3. In view of the fact that the petitioner has filed the instant petition only against the respondent, who has already released the dues in favour of the petitioner, the order of the writ court to the extent of the respondent stands complied with. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings against the respondent are closed. If the petitioner has any claim against his new employer, he shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy against the same employee. 4. The contempt petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 07.10.2026 Rakesh PS