Srinagar: The J&K High Court has sought personal appearance of the Principal Secretary Home department and the Director General of Police, Disaster Response Force (SDRF) for committing alleged contempt by denying promotion to 186 auxiliary police force personnel.
After hearing the parties, Justice A M Magray observed that the judgment passed by the Writ Court on 1st of December, 2009 has remained unimplemented despite assurances and undertakings extended by the respondent officers before the court from time to time.
The respondents, on one pretext or the other, are delaying implementation of the aforesaid judgment inasmuch as no effective steps have been taken by them to ensure implementation of the judgment passed by the court, he said.
There is no other option for the court, but to seek personal appearance of the officer(s) concerned, he added.
Accordingly, he ordered “the respondent No.1- Principal Secretary to Government of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Home Department (Shalin Kabra) and Respondent No.3 – 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.”
The case has been listed on 12th of August, 2021 in the Daily Supplementary Cause List.
This contempt petition was filed by 186 petitioners alleging violation of judgment dated 1st of December, 2009 passed by the Writ Court in SWP No. 211/1999.
The judgment said “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.”
The judgment also said that while fixing pay for grant of in-situ promotion, 50 percent 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.
R A Jan, the counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the Writ Court allowed the petition of the petitioners while taking notice of all the pleas raised and the documents enclosed by the parties.
He further submitted that although in the memo of parties, only five employees were shown as petitioners in the writ petition, but the claim of all the 186 employees was made in the entire writ petition.
He pleaded that the rejection of the claim of the present petitioners by the government is not only non-application of mind, but also misconceived and misdirected as well, thereby causing prejudice to the rights and interests of the petitioners who are equally entitled for the benefit which stands granted to by the respondents to five of the employees who were shown as petitioners in the memo of parties in the writ petition.
The counsel also produced a communication bearing No. Estt/3647-50/19 dated 7th of May, 2019, issued by the Commandant SDRF 1st Bn, Srinagar and addressed to the Accountant General, J&K, Srinagar, whereby re-fixation has been made in favour of one Abdul Gani Sheikh, retired HC No. 1412/Auxiliary Police (now SDRF), 1st Bn. Srinagar for sanction of pension payment order.
B A Dar, the senior additional advocate general, representing the respondents, vehemently argued that the instant contempt petition is not maintainable.
Perusal of the Writ Court records however revealed that the petitioners had submitted that they belong to the Auxiliary Police Force and filed the petition for securing and protecting the interests of the members of the Auxiliary Police Force, holding the post of Constables numbering 186.
After hearing the parties the court asked the Registry to convey the order to respondents one and three. In the event compliance is submitted before the court by the next date of hearing, the officers need not to appear on the next date of hearing, it added.
