| Robkar framed against Com Secy, 3 other officials of SWD | | | S Sabaqat
Srinagar, Nov 6: The J&K High Court has framed Robkar against Commissioner Secretary, Director and two other officials of Social Welfare Department for prima facie contempt of the court by not implementing its orders of adjustment of a woman from Kupwara district as Anganwari worker.
Hearing a contempt petition filed by one Parveeza Bano of Handwara in the frontier district of north Kashmir, a single bench of the court comprising Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey also directed issuance of bailable warrants in the tune of Rs 20000 each against the official respondents and directed Inspector General of Police (Kashmir Zone) to execute it.
On 6 May 2010, the court had directed the respondent to adjust Bano as Anganwari worker, notwithstanding availability of the post.
"Respondents instead of implementing the judgment have rather discussed the merits of the case as if they were sitting in appeal against the judgment," the court said, adding, "The Judgment of which present contempt has arisen has attained finality as no appeal has been filed as submitted by the counsel for respondents(officials)."
The respondents include Commissioner Secretary SWD, Geet Lal Gupra, Director Hilal Ahmad Parray, District Program Officer ICDS Kupwara, Nazir Ahmad and Child Project Officer Ramhal Handwara, Mohammad Wani.
Last month, the High Court had directed its registry to frame Rule against Commissioner Secretary to Government, Technical Education & Youth Service and Sports Department in a contempt petition regarding non-implementation of court orders for considering the appointment of 14 petitioners against the post of teachers in the Physical Education department advertised by the Service Selection Board vide notification No. 3 of 1996 dated 24-12-1996.
Taking strong note of the disobedience to the court orders, a bench of Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar had directed the officer, Parvaiz Ahmad, to appear in persons when the case would come up for hearing during the week commencing November 25.
"The authority besides not complying with the Court Orders has doubted wisdom of the Court in not appreciating points of law that were raised in the order," the court had said while passing the directions. |
|
