news details |
|
|
| Seniority can’t be re-fixed through contempt petitions: DB | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 7: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that disputes over seniority and retrospective promotions cannot be reopened or re-fixed through contempt proceedings, dismissing two Letters Patent Appeals filed by employees of the Forest Department.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal was hearing LPA No. 236/2025 and LPA No. 246/2025 filed by Tariq Ahmad Wani and Salim Mushtaq Sheikh, who had questioned a Single Judge’s order closing their contempt petitions arising out of a promotions dispute in the Forest Department.
The appellants, belonging to the ministerial/Class-IV cadre, had earlier approached the Writ Court seeking consideration for promotion as Forest Guards with effect from the date their alleged juniors were promoted. The Single Judge, while disposing of those writ petitions, had directed the authorities to consider their cases for promotion “along with other eligible employees” in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and to take a decision within two months.
Alleging non-compliance with that direction, the appellants later filed contempt petitions, contending that similarly placed employees had been granted retrospective promotion as Forest Guards from 2009 onwards, while they were denied the same benefit. They asserted that their right to promotion had “accrued and crystallised” in 2009 and that juniors had been favoured despite the court’s earlier order.
The official respondents explained that, following various government orders and circulars, cadre management of Class-IV employees in the Forest Department underwent restructuring. Seniority was initially maintained district-wise under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010, and subsequently a common seniority list of Class-IV employees was prepared under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. Helpers were re-designated and merged into the promotional hierarchy, resulting in changes to inter se seniority, including the position of appellant Tariq Ahmad Wani in the district cadre, Srinagar.
The Single Judge, after considering the compliance report and the subsequent orders passed by the department, held that the earlier writ directions stood complied with and that issues relating to the correctness of seniority lists and promotion orders could not be adjudicated in contempt jurisdiction. The contempt petitions were accordingly closed, with liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedies before the appropriate forum if they felt aggrieved by the fresh seniority determination or alleged discrimination.
Challenging this, the appellants argued before the Division Bench that their seniority and accrued promotional rights could not be altered to their detriment and that the authorities, under the guise of restructuring, had violated the spirit of the writ court’s order.
The Division Bench, however, found no merit in the appeals. It noted that the original writ judgment did not contain any “positive or specific direction” to promote the appellants with retrospective effect or on the basis of a particular seniority list. The direction was limited to considering their claim for promotion along with other eligible employees in accordance with the rules.
Once the authorities had taken a decision purporting to comply with that direction, any grievance regarding the correctness, legality or fairness of the new seniority lists or promotion orders would give rise to a fresh cause of action, the court observed. Such grievances, it held, must be pursued by way of substantive proceedings and not by insisting on punishment for contempt.
Reiterating the settled legal position, the Bench held that contempt jurisdiction is confined to examining whether there has been wilful or deliberate disobedience of a court’s order; it cannot be converted into a forum for re-fixation of seniority, re-appreciation of service records or rewriting of promotion policies.
The court further noted that the Single Judge had already safeguarded the appellants’ interests by expressly granting them liberty to challenge the seniority position, the promotion of alleged juniors or any discriminatory treatment before the competent forum. In such circumstances, there was no justification to interfere with the order under appeal.
Holding that no case of wilful disobedience was made out and that the issues raised by the appellants lay outside the scope of contempt proceedings, the Division Bench dismissed both LPAs as devoid of merit and directed that a copy of its judgment be placed on the record of the connected appeal. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
