news details |
|
|
| HC gives last opportunity to respondents in contempt case | | Compile with HC directions before next date of hearing: Justice Nirmal Singh | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 04- While giving one more opportunity to the respondent in a contempt petition, Justice Nirmal Singh of J&K High Court Jammu Wing today directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders as per the earlier High Court directions and place the petitioner in Gazetted pay scale. The compliance should be done before the next date of hearing, the Court directed.
After hearing senior Advocate AV Gupta with Advocate YE Tak appearing for the petitioner and Additional Advocate General AH Qazi appearing for the state, Justice Singh observed that on the last date of hearing the Court had directed the respondent to implement the judgment in it letter and spirit before the next date of hearing. The respondent filed a compliance report by passing order dated September 1, 2009. A perusal of the order shows that almost similar order was passed earlier also while considering the case of the petitioner. At this stage Additional Advocate General submitted that the compliance of order passed by this Court has been made in letter and spirit. It is stated that the respondent authority after considering the claim of the petitioner has found him not entitled to the said benefit to placement of the petitioner in the Gazetted cadre and release of the pay scale of 8000-13500 in terms of SROs 16 and 234 of 1991. He submitted that under these circumstances it is stated that no violation of order passed by this Court has been done by the authority concerned.
Upon this Justice Nirmal Singh while giving one more opportunity to the respondents observed that in terms of SRO 16 of 1991, the post has been included in Gazetted cadre, subsequently vide SRO 234 of 1991, dated July 30, 1991 and further observed that a perusal of the observations made by High Court shows that the petitioner was found entitled to be placed in the Gazetted cadre in the grade of Rs 8000-13500 in terms of SROs 16 and 234 of 1991 for which the petitioner has been found to be entitled too JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
