STATE TIMES NEWS JAMMU: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court Comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Mohan Lal today while taking serious note over the functioning of Govt and for not implementing the judgment of Court for last 22 years, directed personal presence of ( Asgar Samoon) Commissioner/ Secretary to Government, Higher & Technical Education now Skill Development Department for the purposes of framing the charge, if necessary. Today when the matter was taken-up, Division Bench observed that the petitioner is complaining of the disobedience of the judgment and order dated 12.05.1999 passed in LPA (SW) No. 22/1998, ‘Anita Kumari and Anr v. State of J&K and Others,’ whereby the State authorities were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner on the same lines as in the case of 9 other teachers for the purposes of regularization. The SLP preferred against the judgment and order was dismissed on 30.07.2001 with the direction that in the next selection, candidature of the petitioner shall be considered irrespective of the age bar and that the existing vacancies shall be filled up by selection within six months. Since the SLP was dismissed without granting leave to appeal, the judgment and order appealed against remained intact and was not disturbed in any manner, rather an additional condition was imposed regarding the participation of the petitioner in the next selection. DB further observed that subsequently, on proceedings for contempt initiated before the Supreme Court, it was made clear that the State authorities would consider the case of the petitioner in the same manner as they have considered the cases of the persons mentioned in the Government of Jammu and Kashmir Order dated 01.02.1995, for the purposes of regularization within six weeks. In other words, the Supreme Court reiterated the directions as was given by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 12.05.1999 and specifically directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization within six weeks. DB observed that the State authorities, despite the above clarification and reiteration by the Supreme Court of the direction of this Court, have not cared to comply with the same and rather started commenting upon the orders of the Supreme Court that they are not in harmony. About 22 years have passed but the State Authorities have not followed the directions. AAG Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG appearing for the respondents submits that the order could not be implemented as there was some confusion and it has become necessary to seek the clarification for which he has moved an application. DB do not feel that once the Supreme Court has reiterated the directions of the High Court in the subsequent order, there is no need for seeking clarification and as such the State authorities are prima facie under contempt not only of the order of the High Court but that of the Supreme Court. AAG Sawhney submits that before a charge is framed, he may be allowed two weeks’ time to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as directed. D B on the personal request of the counsel, in the interest of justice so that some good sense prevails upon the State Authorities, let this matter be placed again on 17.12.2021 for personal presence of (Asgar Samoon) Commissioner/ Secretary to Government, Higher & Technical Education now Skill Development Department for the purposes of framing the charge, if necessary. DB further directed that the Secretary, on appearance, would inform the manner he proposes to compensate the petitioner for the loss that she may have suffered due to non consideration of her case for regularization for last 22 years.
