news details |
|
|
| HC seeks appearance of Home Secy, DGP SDRF for non-compliance of judgment | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 26: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court came to rescue of employee who wait for compliance of judgment passed in the year 2009, seeks personal appearance of Principal Secretary to Government of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Home Department and DGP, State Disaster Response Force (SDRF)/ Auxiliary Police, Jammu/ Srinagar on August 12, 2021 so as to explain as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for non-implementation of the judgment passed by the Court in the year 2009..
The significant order has been passed by Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey in a Contempt Petition filed by 85 Petitioners alleging violation of Judgment dated 1st of December, 2009 passed by the Writ Court.
While seeking personal appearance of these two higher officials, Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey observed that By Order dated 3rd of February, 2020, this Court observed that "The instant contempt petition is filed by 85 petitioners who allege violation of judgment dated 1st of December, 2009 passed in SWP No. 211/1999, operative paragraphs whereof read as Rule 5-AA referred to above squarely applies to the consolidated pay employees the way it applies to the daily rated workers. Therefore, 50% of continuous work as consolidated wage service has to be counted with regular service for the purpose of grant of in-situ promotion. The fixation, therefore, has to be made afresh because the earlier fixation made in the year 1995, where-under service of the petitioners has been reckoned with effect from 30.3.1973, has to be changed.
While fixing pay for grant of in-situ promotion, 50% of continuous service which as the petitioners have spent on consolidated basis shall be counted with regular service and accordingly first, second and third higher standard pay scale as shall be warranted under such fixation shall be allowed. The excess amount as a result of earlier fixation, if found to have been drawn on re-fixation on aforesaid terms shall be adjusted.
Justice Magrey after hearing both the sides and perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter observed that during the course of hearing the arguments, a need was felt by this Court to summon the Writ Court records. Perusal of the Writ Court records reveals that in paragraph No.3 of the Writ petition, the petitioners had submitted that they belong to the Auxiliary Police Force and are filing the Writ petition for securing and protecting the interests of the members of the Auxiliary Police Force, holding the post of Constables numbering 186. It is also forthcoming from the Writ Court records that the petitioners had also given the details of all the 186 employees seeking the benefit and had placed the same on record alongside the writ petition as Annexure-"A". Even though the respondents rebutted the said contention of the petitioners in their reply filed before the Writ Court, but no finding was returned by the Writ Court on the said issue of common cause and, instead, the impugned communications were set aside as a whole and not to the effect of the petitioners in the Writ petition only. It being so, the relief granted by the Writ Court cannot be said to be with regard to the five petitioners in the Writ petition only, but same has to be applied to the case of all the employees of the then Auxiliary Police Force whose names figured in the list of employees placed on record alongside the writ petition as Annexure-"A", including the petitioners herein. Furthermore, the contention of the learned senior counsel representing the petitioners that out of 186 members of the Auxiliary Police Force, figuring in the Annexure- "A" of the writ petition, more than 80 employees have already got the benefit of the judgment of this Court to the exclusion of the petitioners, has also remained unrebutted by the other side.
Justice Magrey observed that today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, it transpired that the needful, till date, has not been done by the Respondents despite availing umpteen opportunities.
Court further observed that in the above background, there is no other option for the Court, but to seek personal appearance of the officer(s) concerned. Accordingly, -Principal Secretary to Government of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Home Department; and DGP, State Disaster Response Force (SDRF)/ Auxiliary Police, Jammu/ Srinagar, appear before the Court on the next date of hearing so as to explain as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for non-implementation of the judgment passed by the Court in the year 2009. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
