DB closes contempt proceedings against Comm Secy Forests

Excelsior Correspondent

SRINAGAR, July 27 : High Court has closed contempt proceedings against Commissioner Secretary Forest and Ecology alleging disobedience of court directions.
The petitioner-Peer Siraj ud din Shah initiated proceedings for contempt complaining about the disobedience of the order dated 13.10.2017 passed in contempt for getting the order implemented.
The facts as revealed from the petition indicate that in the earlier round of the litigation regarding the promotion of the petitioner, the court vide judgment and order dated 25.03.2015 disposed of the appeal granting three month’s time to the official respondents for framing the rules.
In pursuance to the judgment and order, the official respondents framed the relevant rules sometime in the year 2017. The grievance of the petitioner at that time despite framing of the rules, he was not accorded promotion.
On the direction of the Court his matter for promotion, according to the rules, was directed to be considered. On consideration, the Commissioner Secretary to the Government vide his detailed order dated 18th June, 2021, rejected the claim of the petitioner saying that petitioner has already been placed as Assistant Director-II and for any further promotions he will be considered against the available posts in future on the basis of the seniority and criteria laid down for promotion.
“In view of the facts and circumstances, any order passed by the Contempt Court for directing that the petitioner be accorded promotion would be contrary to the above order and would be an order without jurisdiction as the Contempt Court is not vested with any power to pass orders on the merits of the claims of the parties”, Division Bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar said.
“We are of the view that it is not a fit case where any contempt is made out. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner is free to challenge the consideration order dated 18th June, 2021, in the appropriate forum, if so advised”, reads the judgment.