Jammu, Aug 05: In CPSW No. 103/2015 in SWP No. 83/2008 titled Taro Devi V/s Susheel Aima and another after hearing HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDERED as under:-
1. It shocks the conscience of the Court that the order/judgment passed by this Court way back on 05.08.2013 in SWP No. 83/2008, which has assumed finality, has not been complied with even after the lapse of 13 years and the instant contempt petition is pending before this Court since 2015.
2. By virtue of order dated 23.03.2026, the Chief Engineer, PHE Division Jammu was directed to remain present either physically or through virtual mode with a view to explain as to why the judgment of the writ Court has not been implemented.
When the matter was taken up on 21.07.2026, an application seeking exemption from personal appearance on behalf of the Chief Engineer was filed on the ground that on the said date he was managing the affairs in the flood affected areas of Rajouri. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Chief Engineer was Sr. No. 56 CPSW No. 103/2015 Page 2 of 4 exempted from personal appearance and the matter was directed to be listed today.
3. Today, when the instant petition was taken up, Mr. Mohd. Hanief, Chief Engineer, PHE Division Jammu has appeared in person through virtual mode, who submits that the matter has been taken up with the Administrative Department on 09.04.2026 and pursuant thereto, the Administrative Department has raised certain queries in the matter for seeking information/details related to the service tenure of the petitioner. From the statement of facts filed by the respondents it is revealed that on 28.04.2026, the details were forwarded to the Administrative Department for further necessary action in the matter.
The Chief Engineer, PHE further submits that the concurrence has to be given by the Administrative Department with a view to comply the order/judgment passed by the learned writ Court and because of the fact that the matter is pending before the Administrative Department, order could not be complied with.
4. Record further reveals that the learned writ Court by virtue of the order/judgment dated 05.08.2013 has disposed of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner with a direction to the official respondents to accord consideration in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 by treating the petitioner as regularized from the date of completion of seven years, i.e., February 1993 and pass appropriate order within a period of two months from the date a copy of the order was made available to them.
The order which was required to be complied within two months, has not been complied till date even after the lapse of 13 years and therefore, it is a fit case where a rule is required to be framed against CPSW No. 103/2015 the Chief Engineer and also against the Administrative Secretary who has not given the nod as on date.
The respondents have shown scant respect to the order passed by this Court, therefore, for their willful disobedience of the direction passed by this Court, which has assumed finality, this Court is of the view that the respondents are prima facie in contempt and therefore, they are required to be proceeded accordingly.
The respondents even after the lapse of more than 13 years are shifting the onus on each others’ shoulder with a view to defeat the rights of the petitioner which have been crystallized by the learned Single Judge in the form of the judgment mentioned supra.
5. Since the Administrative Secretary is not a party respondent in the instant contempt petition, to whom the matter, according to the Chief Engineer, has been referred, who is also in recurring contempt for not complying the direction passed by this Court who, though, was a party respondent in the main petition, yet has not been arrayed as a party respondent in the instant contempt petition.
6. In light of the stand taken by the respondents in the statement of facts and on an oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shaleen Kabra, Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Public Works Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu is arrayed as party respondent No. 3 in the instant contempt petition.
7. Notice to the newly added respondent No. 3, which is waived by Ms. Chetna Manhas, learned counsel appearing vice Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr.AAG. Registry is directed to update the cause title of this contempt petition, accordingly.
8. This Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, defer the framing of rule and grant last and final opportunity to learned counsel for the respondents to come up with final compliance of the order/judgment passed by the learned writ Court within one week, failing which this Court will be constrained to frame rule against both the respondents.
9. List this matter on 12.08.2026.
10. It is made clear that in case the order/judgment is complied with on or before the next date of hearing, the respondents need not to appear and conversely if the judgment is not complied with, then both the respondents shall remain present in person physically on the next date of hearing.
|