Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 508 (JK)

State of J&K v. Rehil Singh

2017-08-01

ALOK ARADHE, SANJEEV KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. In this Intra Court Appeal, the appellants have assailed the validity of order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1863/2001, by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and directed the appellants herein to re-engage them, if they are not in service as on date and allow them to complete seven years service by counting the service already rendered by them if they have not completed their seven years of service till the date of their discontinuation i.e. 05.02.2001 and thereafter, regularize their services in terms of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in 2013 (1) SLJ, 73 within a period of two months. 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Division Bench in the case of State of J&K and ors vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sohail and ors. 2013(1) SLJ 73, has not considered the effect of the Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 6.11.2001, as the same does not apply to the daily rated workers. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the aforesaid order has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and the SLP preferred by the appellants has been dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. It is submitted that order passed in the case of Muhtaq Ahmad Sohail (supra) has been implemented by the State Government vide order dated 04.03.2016. 4. In view of the fact that order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 05.05.2015 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7766/2015 and the SLP preferred by the appellants has been dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits, we cannot take a different view in view of the mandate contained under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that respondents have initiated contempt proceedings against them and since the appeal was pending, therefore, order passed by the learned Single Judge has not been complied with. He prays that for complying with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, time be extended by one month. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that respondents have initiated contempt proceedings against them and since the appeal was pending, therefore, order passed by the learned Single Judge has not been complied with. He prays that for complying with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, time be extended by one month. We are inclined to grant one month’s time for complying with directions contained in order dated 22.12.2015 and hope that the directions are complied with positively by the appellants within the aforesaid period. 6. With the aforesaid observations, appeal is disposed of.