Jammu, July 12: Jammu CAT issued "Bailable Warrants" against M Raju Commissioner Secretary GAD, to executed by IGP.
Read Order below :
C.P./310/2024 (JAMMU) [ CONTEMPT ] In T.A./1953/2020 titled BASHIR AHMED Vs GENERAL ADMINISTRATION UT OF J&K AND ORS after hearing CAT ordered sas under:-
1. This Contempt Petition is filed praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for not implementing and violating the order of this Tribunal dated 10.07.2024 made in T.A. No. 1953 of 2020 and award suitable punishment as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The aforesaid T.A. was disposed of on 10.07.2024 directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds to any vacancy in any Government Department in consonance with the provisions of J&K (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994 promulgated vide notification SRO 43 of 1994 read with SRO 177 of 2014 and commensurate to the qualification attained by the petitioner against a post in accordance with rules. The Respondents were directed to complete the exercise within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.
3. Alleging non-compliance of the above order, the petitioner has filed the present Contempt Petition.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order under contempt was passed on 10.07.2024 and the petitioner has sent a communication for implementation of order dated 10.07.2024 to the respondents and inspite of the same, the order under contempt has not been complied with, leading to the filing of the present Contempt Petition.
5. Since the respondents have not complied with the order under contempt, notices were directed to be issued to the respondents and the respondent no. 2 Shri Rajesh Kumar Shavan, the then Deputy Commissioner, Kishtwar has filed the compliance report/ statement of facts.
6. From the reading of Annexure- II and Annexure-III of the said statement of facts, it is obvious that the respondents have shown total disregard to the order of this Tribunal dated 10.07.2024 by questioning the correctness of the said order. On the last date, this Tribunal afforded an opportunity to the respondents to reconsider the whole issue in accordance with the direction in the order dated 10.07.2024 and file the compliance report failing which, respondents were directed to appear in person or through virtual mode before this Tribunal.
7. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsels for the respondents seek further time to file the compliance report.
8. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Deputy Commissioner, Kishtwar (Contemnor No. 2) has appeared through virtual mode and submitted that some time be granted to implement the final order of this Tribunal dated 10.07.2024 as the matter will be again taken up with the Secretary GAD, Jammu for relaxation of rules for appointment of petitoner on compassionate basis.
9. Mr. M. Raju, Secretary General Administration Department, Jammu (Contemnor No. 1) has not appeared either in person or through virtual mode before this Tribunal, despite direction on the last date and his nonappearance could not be justified by Mr. Sudesh Magotra, learned A.A.G. in any manner.
10. In the T.A., petitioner has sought appointment to any vacancy in any Government Department in District Kishtwar in consonance with the provisions of J&K (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994.
The father of the petitioner was killed in a militant attack on 23.09.1999, who left behind his widow, one daughter and one son (petitioner), who were dependent upon him. The petitioner after attaining majority approached Deputy Commissioner Kishtwar through his representation dated 12.01.2016 for his appointment in any available vacancy on the ground that family is facing hardships. Despite the petitioner having submitted representation in the year 2016 highlighting his grievance, the respondent no. 2 neither acted on it within a reasonable time nor provided any response, compelling the petitioner to file a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K bearing SWP/WP(C) No. 179/2019, which was transferred to this Tribunal by the Hon'ble High Court and renumbered as T.A. No. 1953 of 2020. Upon hearing the matter and taking into account the rights of the petitioner, this Tribunal vide order dated 10.07.2024 has allowed the T.A.
11. It is evident from the record that despite considerable time being afforded and despite clear judicial mandate, the respondents/ contemnors failed to comply with the Tribunal's order.
Even after issuance of statutory notice in the contempt proceedings, there is no sincere effort to rectify the lapse. On the contrary, the respondent no. 1 has questioned the correctness of the order of this Tribunal.
This Tribunal notes with concern that such conduct by public authorities is not an isolated incident. In numerous cases, it is seen that poor and aggrieved litigants, after approaching public authorities for redressal of genuine grievances, are forced to approach this Tribunal for directions.
Even after judicial intervention, the concerned authorities, for reasons best known to them, either delay or altogether ignore compliance, compelling the litigants to resort to contempt proceedings for enforcement of their rights. Such repeated and consistent defiance by public officials is not only wrong but also challenges the fundamental principles of justice that the Rule of Law is meant to uphold.
12. Once an order is passed by this Tribunal, it is binding and compliance is not optional. Any deliberate failure to act amounts to wilful disobedience and constitutes Contempt of Court.
13. This Tribunal, therefore, is contrained to record that the respondents/ contemnors have wilfully and wantonly disobeyed the order passed by this Tribunal. The excuses offered are neither bona fide nor satisfactory. The respondents' actions, show a clear defiance of the Tribunal's order which cannot be allowed and they must be held accountable for their conduct.
14. It is a fit case where proceedings are required to be initiated against the respondents/ contemnors under the Contempt Of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992.
15. However, before framing ROBKAR against the respondents/ contemnors, let a bailable warrant to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- be issued at first instance for securing the presence of Mr. M. Raju, Secretary, General Administration Department, Jammu (Contemnor No. 1) before this Tribunal on the next date.
The warrant shall be executed by the IGP Jammu who, on execution of personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- by the Respondent/ Contemnor No. 1, shall release him from custody with the undertaking to appear before this Tribunal on the due date.
16. List on 04.08.2025.
17. A copy of this order be forwarded to learned counsels for the respondents for information and compliance.
|