IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2092 OF 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.3583 of 2020)

COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT, JAMMU (J&K) & OTHERS Appellants

VERSUS

JAI SINGH & OTHERS Respondents

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the High

Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in COA (SW) No.479/2013 in SWP

No.1161 of 2012.

3. The aforestated Contempt Application (SW) No.479 of 2013 had sought enforcement of the directions issued by the High Court in its judgment and order dated 02.05.2013, which directions were to the following effect:

"9. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposed of with a direction to the respondents to expedite the cases of the petitioners for getting sanction for regularization of their services as per recommendation already made to the Finance Department (Annexure-D) and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date, copy of this order is served upon them. Petitioners, if so advised, are directed to supply a copy of writ petition along with its annexures to respondents so as to enable them in early disposal of the matter."

4. After these directions, the matter was considered on 04.01.2019 by the

Empowered Committee and insofar as the contempt petitioners are concerned,

the following decision was taken:

Social Forestry Division Ramban
S. No.	Name/Parentage/Address	Decision
16.	Jai Singh<br>S/o Bhagu Ram<br>R/o Gam	Does not fall within the mandate of<br>Empowered Committee, having being<br>engaged as casual labour.
17.	Dharu Bhagat<br>S/o Daya Ram<br>R/o Gam	-do
18.	Kamal Singh<br>S/o Amar Nath<br>R/o Neera	-do
19	Om Prakash<br>S/o Baldev Raj<br>R/o Jatter	-do
20.	Mohan Lal<br>S/o Bhagtoo<br>R/o Thanda Pani	-do
21.	Altaf Hussain<br>S/o Gulab Din<br>R/o Karmail	-do
22.	Mushtaq Ahmad<br>S/o Abdul Gani<br>R/o Jatter	-do
23.	Ramesh Singh<br>S/o Hari Chand<br>R/o Marooq	-do
24.	Mohammad Gulshan<br>S/o Gh Mohammad<br>R/o Assar	-do
25.	Mool Raj<br>S/o Anant Ram<br>R/o Kanga	-do
26.	Zahoor Ahmad<br>S/o Mohd. Abdullah<br>R/o Doligam	-do
27.	Anil Kumar<br>S/o Prem Nath<br>R/o Maitra	-do
28.	Mohammad Maqbool<br>S/o Hakam Din<br>R/o Dharmond Batote	-do-

5. The decision was signed by Five Members of the Empowered Committee.

6. This led to the filing of the aforestated Contempt Petition in which the Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 25.09.2019 observed that the directions issued in the order dated 02.05.2013 were not complied with. The Single Judge, in the interest of justice, extended the time by four weeks within which the directions issued in the order dated 02.05.2013 could be complied with.

7. Thereafter, by communication dated 05.11.2019, the decision was taken by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest/Director, Department of Social Forestry, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, rejecting the submissions made on behalf of the contempt petitioners. It was observed:-

"Now, therefore, after thoughtful consideration of the above said facts, the records pertaining to the case of the petitioners and the communication dated 23.10.2019 viz-a-viz the Hon'ble High Court directions dated 02.05.2013 passed in SWP No.1161/2012, it has been observed that the cases of the petitioners (14) do not fall under the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994, having being engaged as casual labourers, and as such, their cases shall be processed in terms of SRO-520 of 2017 if they are found otherwise eligible."

8. Later, by impugned order dated 28.1.2020, the Single Judge of the High Court directed all the Members of the Empowered Committee as also the Commissioner/Secretary of the Forest Department to remain personally present in the Court on the next date of hearing.

9. By order dated 07.02.2020 passed by this Court, further proceedings in the aforestated Contempt Petition were stayed by this Court.

10. We have heard Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Advocate in support of

the petition, and, Mr. Mahesh Thakur, learned counsel for the original contempt petitioners.

11. According to Mr. Hansaria, the direction issued on 02.05.2013 contemplated appropriate consideration at the level of the Empowered Committee and the functionaries of the State. In pursuance of the said direction, the matter was considered by the Empowered Committee and appropriate decision was arrived at. Even after the first order passed by the High Court on 25.09.2019, the matter was again considered by the Commissioner/Secretary of the Forest Department and the claim of the contempt petitioners was rejected.

12. It is thus submitted that if the contempt petitioners were aggrieved by the decisions of the Empowered Committee as well as of the Commissioner/Secretary to the Forest Department, it was open to them to challenge the decision on merits but the case could not be a subject matter of the contempt petition. Secondly, there was no occasion for the High Court to insist on the personal presence of all the Members of the Empowered Committee and the Commissioner/Secretary to the Forest Department.

13. Since the contempt petition is still pending consideration before the High Court, we do not deem it appropriate to consider the first submission advanced by Mr. Vijay Hansaria and leave the present appellants to advance such submission before the High Court as is open to them. They shall be entitled to submit before the High Court that the order dated 02.05.2013 stood complied with and, therefore, there was no occasion to deal with the contempt petition.

14. However, we find that a case is made out to quash the direction insisting on personal presence of the alleged contemnors in said contempt petition.

15. We, therefore, set-aside the said direction issued by the High Court in its impugned order. The contempt petition shall now be proceeded with without insisting on the personal presence of the alleged contemnors and the High Court shall deal with the contention that the order dated 02.05.2013 was complied with by the present appellants.

16. With these observations, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

………………………………………………….J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT)

………………………………………………….J. (S. RAVINDRA BHAT)

………………………………………………….J. (PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)

New Delhi; March 21, 2022. ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVI-A (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.3583/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-01-2020 in CPSW No.479/2013 passed by the High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh At Jammu)

COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT, JAMMU (J&K) & OTHERS Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

JAI SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 21-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

Counsel for the Parties:

Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ketan Paul, AOR Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Adv.

Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed, in terms of the Signed Order placed on

the file.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(MUKESH NASA) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER