Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Robkar vs Manzoor Ahmad Lone And Ors on 14 July, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Sr. No.29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CCP 2/2020 in[SWP 508/2014]
CM(2749/2024) CM(5328/2021)
CM(6567/2023) CM(6717/2025)
CM(830/2021) CM(2750/2024)
CM(6702/2024)
c/w
CCP(S) 458/2019 CM(34/2021)
ROBKAR ...Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Sameena Altaf, Advocate
Vs.
MANZOOR AHMAD LONE AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Mohammad Younis, Assisting Counsel
Mr. Javaid Hameed, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
14-07-2026
1. After several rounds of litigation between the parties, initiated by the
contempt petitioner seeking his regularization in service, an order came to be
passed by the writ court on 24th July, 2015, whereby Additional Deputy
Commissioner, Anantnag was directed to conduct an inquiry and return a
positive finding about the eligibility of the petitioner for being brought on
regular temporary establishment in terms of rules notified vide SRO 64 of
1994. It was further held that while conducting inquiry, the documents
which the petitioner may produce before Additional Deputy Commissioner
shall be considered, and he shall also advert his attention to the judgment
passed in earlier writ petition bearing SWP No. 415/2010. Besides this,
Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag was directed to conduct an
inquiry within a period of four weeks and in case any recommendation is
made for regularization of services of the petitioner, then the petitioner was
to be brought on regular temporary establishment in terms of rules notified
vide SRO 64 of 1994 within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
2. When the aforesaid judgment of the writ court was not implemented
by the respondents within the stipulated time, the petitioner was constrained
to file contempt petition bearing CPSW No. 162/2016. During the pendency
of the said petition, the respondents came up with an order bearing No.
309/Estt. of 2019 dated 18-9-2019, projecting it as compliance to the
judgment of the court. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings were closed,
leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedy as may be available
to him in law.
3. It appears that pursuant to the issuance of order dated 18-9-2019
supra, the petitioner was not allowed to join by the Mushroom Development
Officer, Anantnag. According to him, he did not fulfill the conditions
stipulated in the order of regularization. This constrained the petitioner to
file another contempt petition before this Court, which is registered as
CCP(S) No. 458/2019. When the respondents/contemnors did not implement
the judgment of the court in its letter and spirit, this court, by an order dated
15-12-2020, was constrained to frame Rule against the
respondents/contemnors and to issue notices to them to explain as to why
they should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.
4. Pursuant to receipt of the notices, the respondents/contemnors came
up with another order bearing Agriculture Order No. 39/Estt. of 2025 dated
4-2-2025, whereby sanction has been accorded for settlement of petitioner’s
service matter with the condition that period of his absence from 1-9-2005 to
17-9-2019 would be treated as dies non in accordance with Article 163 of
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Rules, Volume 1, and period for his
suspension from 26-2-2022 to 28-11-2024 has been treated as on duty under
Article 108-B of J&K CSR. While doing so, the services of the petitioner
have been regularized and his seniority has been fixed on parity with Shri
Shams ud din Rather.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that period from 1-9-2005 to
17-9-2019 could not have been treated as dies non, as according to the
petitioner he was on the rolls of the respondents, which fact is being denied
by the respondents. It is for this purpose that the respondents were directed
to produce the relevant record. However, the relevant record has not been
produced today. The same shall be produced by the respondents on next date
of hearing.
6. Without going into the record that may be produced by the
respondents before this Court, one thing is certain that after the passing of
judgment dated 24-7-2015 by the writ court, the petitioner had to await
implementation of the said judgment until 18-9-2019, when for the first time
the respondents came up with an order regularizing his services subject to
certain conditions. Had the respondents implemented the judgment dated
24.07.2015 passed by the writ court within stipulated period of eight weeks,
the petitioner would have been in a position to join his duties in the month of
September, 2015. However, the respondents chose not to implement the
judgment of the writ court until 18-9-2019. Thus, there was no occasion or
opportunity for the petitioner to join his duties. Even after the issuance of
order dated 18.9.2019, he was not allowed to join his duties until the
issuance of order dated 4.2.2025, which is the latest order passed by the
respondents in connection with regularizing services of the petitioner.
Therefore, if at all, anybody is to be blamed for absence of the petitioner
from duty for the period beginning from September 2015 till 17.9.2019, it is
the respondents and nobody else. The period of absence of the petitioner
during the aforesaid period cannot be treated as dies non in any
circumstances whatsoever.
7. In view of the above circumstances, the respondents are not at all
justified in including the period from September 2015 up to 17.9.2019 in the
period treated as dies non. So far as the rest of the period mentioned in order
dated 4.2.2025 is concerned, a decision regarding the same has to be taken
upon perusal of the record, that may be produced by the respondents.
8. It would be in the fitness of things for the respondents to modify
order dated 4.2.2025 in the light of the observations made hereinbefore and
file a fresh compliance report by next date of hearing. They shall also appear
before this court through physical/virtual mode on next date of hearing and
explain as to why they should not be proceeded against under the Contempt
of Courts Act.
9. Be listed on 10.08.2026.
10. A copy of this order be sent to respondents/contemnors for
information and compliance.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
14-07-2026
Aamir
Amir Rashid Sofi
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
