Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 489 (JK)

Joginder Singh v. Abdul Majid

2017-07-28

ALOK ARADHE, SANJEEV KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 08.06.2016 passed by this Court in Contempt(SWP) No.461/2016 by which the contempt petition preferred by the petitioners was disposed of with the liberty to assail the order dated 28.04.2017, if so advised. 3. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant extract of the order of which the non compliance is alleged which was passed in SWP No.651/2014 dated 06.05.2015 which reads as under: “2. Mr. A. V. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of J&K, assisted by Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate, as well as Mrs. Seema Shekher representing respondent Nos.2 & 3, state that they have no objection to this course of action being adopted and that in case representation is made, the same would be considered and decided in accordance with law. 3. In view of the statement of both the sides, the Writ Petition is disposed by granting permission to the petitioners to move a representation before the High Court of J&K for the re-dressal of their grievances. In case such a representation is moved, this Court is of the view that in view of the assurance held out by learned counsel for opposite side, the same would be considered and decided within a reasonable period of time. 4. Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.” 4. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it is evident that the writ petition was disposed of by granting permission to the petitioners to move a representation to the High Court of J&K for redressal of their grievances and this Court had expressed an opinion that the same would be considered and decided within a reasonable period of time. In other words, no direction was issued with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioners. 5. Thereafter the petitioners filed the contempt petition which was decided vide order dated 08.06.2017 on the aforesaid date, an order dated 28.04.2017 was produced on behalf of the respondents by which the sanction was granted for creation of posts in Jammu and Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968. 5. Thereafter the petitioners filed the contempt petition which was decided vide order dated 08.06.2017 on the aforesaid date, an order dated 28.04.2017 was produced on behalf of the respondents by which the sanction was granted for creation of posts in Jammu and Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968. It was pointed out that three posts in the Selection Grade in PB-15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- (two posts for Bench Secretaries and one for Deputy Registrar) on the analogy of Rule 5(1)(iii) read with Rule 5(3) of the KAS Rules, 2008, and five posts in the Special Scale in PB-37400-67000 with Grade Pay of Rs.8700/- (three for Bench Secretaries and two for Deputy Registrars) on the analogy of Rule 5(1)(iv) read with Rule 5(2) of the KAS Rules, 2008. In the aforesaid order, the contempt petition was disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 28.04.2017 in accordance with law. 6. The learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing the writ petition dated 06.05.2015 had not passed any direction in positive terms to grant a particular benefit to the petitioners, therefore, in our considered opinion, no case for willful disobedience of lawful authority is made out and the order passed by this Court does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the review jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.