Dismissed

Nisar Ahmad Kumar v. Talat Parvez and Ors. (Hospitality and Protocol Department)

J&K HC3 Dec 2021CCP(S)/319/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of a contempt petition after the state placed relevant government and office orders on record. While satisfied with compliance regarding regularisation, the court directed specific respondents to release remaining promotion arrears for the petitioner within one month. Failure to comply would allow revival of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to release arrears of promotion against the post of Driver (Grade-I) from 06.07.2018 within one month.

Nisar Ahmad Kumar Vs Talat Parvez and Ors. (Hospitality and… — Contempt of Court | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

Serial No. 170 Suppl. list

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

CCP(S) No. 319/2021 CM No. 5329/2021

Nisar Ahmad Kumar

….. Petitioner(s)

Through: -

Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Lyba Rasool, Advocate

¶8

V/s

¶9

Talat Parvez and Ors.

¶10

….. Respondent(s)

¶11

Through: - Mr. B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge (ORDER)

¶14

03.12.2021

¶15

When this matter was taken up for consideration, Mr. B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG, sought permission to place on record the office order No. 367-KRC of 2021 dated 25.11.2021. Permission granted. Order dated 25.11.2021 is taken on record.

¶16

Mr. B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG, appearing counsel for respondents submits that the final order/Judgment passed by this Court on 16.04.2018 in SWP No. 1761/2017 titled Nisar Ahmad Kumar Vs. State of JK and Ors., modified vide order dated 10.05.2018, in terms whereof the Court while allowing the writ petition quashed the impugned order bearing No. 263-KRC of 2017 dated 30^th of October, 2017, along with the requisition made by the respondent department to the Service Selection Board for filling up the post of Driver, consequently, the respondents were directed to regularize the service of petitioner against the post of Driver (Grade-II) i.e., Rs. 5200-20200 (pre revised), which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 18.02.2021, in terms whereof the Letters Patent Appeal

¶17

filed by the State of JK now Union Territory and Ors., was dismissed and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5729/2021, filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., vide order dated 16.04.2021, stands implemented in its letter and spirit.

¶18

Mr. B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG further submits that the implementation is made by issuance of Government order No. 13(JK) H&P of 2021 dated 22.09.2021, in terms whereof the petitioner was adjusted against the post of Driver Grade-II in the pay scale of Level-2 (19900-63200) retrospectively, from the date he has been performing his duties in the office of Resident Commissioner, New Delhi. Consequent thereto the arrears on account of the appointment as Driver (Grade-II) were released in terms of office order No. 269-KRC of 2021 dated 27.09.2021, to the tune of Rs. 3,93,945.00 in favour of the petitioner from the date he has been performing his duties as such in the office w.e.f. 01.01.2020.

¶19

Mr. B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG, further submits that in terms of office order No. 367-KRC of 2021 dated 25.11.2021, petitioner was promoted as Driver (Grade-I) in the pay scale of Rs. 25500-81100 (L4) notionally with effect from 11.04.2018 and monetarily with effect from 06.07.2018 when the post of Driver (Grade-I) became available. Learned counsel further averred that the Judgment is complied with in letter and spirit, therefore, the instant contempt petition deserves to be closed now.

¶20

Mr. Faisal Qadri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed the compliance of the Judgment with reference to the orders issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and Principal, Resident Commissioner, New Delhi, however, he submits that petitioner was not only entitled to the arrears of Rs.

¶21

3,93,945.00 but to the amount of Rs. 5,94,728/- against the post of Driver (Grade-II) from 01.01.2010, which the respondents while noticing have paid remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,783/- to the petitioner on 12.10.2021. Learned senior counsel further submits that the consequential benefit of promotion made in favour of the petitioner in terms of order dated 25.11.2021, is not to the satisfaction of the petitioner as the monetary benefits from the date of entitlement have not been released for the post of Driver (Grade-I), in his favour, therefore, the Judgment is not implemented in letter and spirit.

¶22

The Court is satisfied with the compliance of the final order/Judgment, however to ensure that the arrears on account of promotion against the post of Driver (Grade-I) made in terms of order dated 25.11.2021 are released, it has become necessary to direct the respondent No. 2-Principal Resident Commissioner and respondent No. 3- Additional Resident Commissioner, to release the arrears of promotion against the post of Driver (Grade-I) in favour of the petitioner.

¶23

In view of above, the instant contempt petition shall stand disposed of as settled. In the event the arrears on account of promotion against the post of Driver (Grade-I) made in terms of order dated 25.11.2021, from 06.07.2018 are not released, as directed, in favour of the petitioner within a reasonable time and not more than one month, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek revival of the contempt petition.

¶24

Copy of the order be provided to Mr. B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG, under the seal and signature of the Bench Secretary for doing the needful.

¶25

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge

¶26

SRINAGAR

¶27

03.12.2021

¶28

“Mohammad Yasin Dar”

¶29

MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2021.12.03 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Nisar Ahmad Kumar v. Talat Parvez and Ors. (Hospitality and Protocol Department)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisar Ahmad Kumar v. Talat Parvez and Ors. (Hospitality and Protocol Department)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghulam Rasool Bhat Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. (Revenue Departmernt)

Private B.Ed. Colleges Accociation Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.

Sajad Hussain Darzi Vs State of Jk and Ors. Home(State Government)

Mohammad Asif Malik and Anr. Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Home Department)

M/S Fdm Taxi and Maxi Cab Stand Drivers Union Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Srinagar Development Authority)

Syed Mehmood Zaidi and Ors. Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Housing and Urban Development Department)