Court directs Government to amend SRO-75 of 1992

Srinagar: Jammu and Kashmir High Court has directed the state government to ‘amend’ SRO-75 of 1992 notionally from 1987 and financially from the year 1990.

    The High Court Bench of Jammu wing comprising Justice M K Hanjura issued direction to the state to implement the ruling in letter and spirit in WP 1608/192 as a cadre of Superintending Engineers by amending SRO-75 of 1992 replacing grade at serial number 23 with serial number 25.

    The single bench in its rulings has also drawn attention towards the bureaucratic ‘rigmaroles’ coupled with ‘torturous’ twenty five years. The bench ruled SRO be implemented at par with SRO-163 of 2005.

   It may be place to mention that the petitioners Er Saif-ud-Din Shangllo, Abdul Khaliq Kanjwal, Nissar Hussain, Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Sheikh, Mohammad Ramzan Dar, Vijay Kumar Bhagotra and J.L. Koul Mantoo (all retired Superintending Engineers) had filed an application being CMA No.188/2013, seeking leave of the Court to intervene in the instant Contempt Petition No.123 of 2013.

    However the application was dismissed on 13.06.2014 by a Single Bench of high Court. An application filed subsequently seeking review of the order dated 13.06.2014 was also dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2015.

   The applicants assailed these orders in the appeals being LPAC No.02/2015 and LPAC No.3/2015. LPAC No.02/2015 c/w LPAC No.3/2015 came up before the Division Bench of this Court on 28.05.2015 and the Division Bench set aside the aforesaid orders dated 13.06.2014 and 20.02.2015 and allowed the application (CMA No.188/2013) for intervention, as a consequence of which the applicants were permitted to intervene in the Contempt (SWP) No.123/2013 against the order dated 28.05.2015 passed by the Division Bench. The State had chosen to seek the available remedy by preferring an SLP(C) No.29669-29670/15 before the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the aforesaid SLP on 17.10.2016 as a corollary to which the order of the Division Bench stated herein-before assumed finality.

    Bench after hearing counsel for the petitioner Advocate D.C Raina and Advocate Rajneesh Oswal directed respondent (State) that the exercise shall be undertaken and concluded by it within a period of six weeks from the date the copy of the order is served on them.

   Court also sought directed the state to submit compliance report on or before the next date of listing before the Bench.

    “Before looking into consequence, magnitude and the significance of the judgment cited above, it needs to be said in an apparent digression that the work of the Courts, from the apex to the lowermost, is primarily to administer law and dispense justice,” reads of the order passed by the Court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.