STATE OF J & K Vs VINOD KUMAR VERMA
Bench: P. SATHASIVAM,J. CHELAMESWAR
Case number: SLP(C) No.-006614-006615 / 2011
Diary number: 2168 / 2011
Advocates: SUNIL FERNANDES Vs
VIKAS MEHTA
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) Nos. 6614-6615 of 2011
State of Jammu and Kashmir .... Petitioner (s)
Versus
Vinod Kumar Verma and Another .... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) These SLPs are directed against the common final
judgment and order dated 08.12.2010 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in
LPAC No. 23 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench dismissed
the same as not maintainable.
2) Brief Facts:
a) Vinod Kumar Verma-Respondent No. 1 herein was
appointed as Sectional Officer (Civil) in the Public Works
Department (PWD) of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on ad
1
hoc basis on 10.08.1981 and he joined the said post on
11.08.1981. On 17.08.1981, Respondent No. 1 herein was
further adjusted as Sectional Officer (Civil) on ad hoc basis in
the Power Development Department (PDD), Civil Construction
Circle, Jammu and subsequently he was adjusted in Seva
Hydel Project, an establishment of PDD. The service of the
Respondent No. 1 herein was regularized by the State
Government vide Government Order No. PW-670 of 1981
dated 31.10.1981 and he was adjusted in the Power
Development Department (PDD) figuring at Serial No. 92 of the
said Order. In the similar manner, Shiv Dev Singh Jasrotia-
Respondent No. 2 herein was also appointed as Sectional
Officer (Civil) in the Power Development Department (PDD) on
02.12.1982 and he was also adjusted in Seva Hydel Project.
b) In the year 1985, the Respondent No. 1 was transferred
from Power Development Department (PDD) to Public Health
Engineering (PHE) as both these Departments were falling
under the Hydraulic Wing and constitute the same cadre and
service as the persons from one service could be transferred to
the other. Similarly, the persons working in PDD and
2
Hydraulic Wing constitute one service under the PWD and
were having the same seniority and the posts were
interchangeable from one service to the other which continued
till the year 1992. In the same manner, the Respondent No. 2
was posted as Junior Engineer from PDD to Irrigation
Department, R&B Circle, Leh as a part of his frontier service
which is compulsory for every employee in his service career.
c) On 10.03.1989, a combined tentative Seniority List of
Sectional Officers of PDD and Hydraulic Wing was issued by
the PDD in which all the SOs/JEs were included and most of
the similarly situated Junior Engineers have been shown
senior to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On 16.07.1992, sanction
was accorded by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir for
setting up of a separate Civil and Mechanical Cadre of the
PDD. Vide Government Order dated 09.12.1992, a separate
seniority list of Junior Engineers of PDD was issued ignoring
the fact that the Respondents herein were still holding their
lien on the post in their parental department i.e. PDD.
3
d) Being aggrieved of the same, the respondents herein filed
Writ Petition being SWP No. 1528 of 2001 for inclusion of their
names in the final seniority list of SOs/JEs (Civil) in the Power
Development Department which was issued in the year 1992.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Division
Bench of the same High Court had passed final order dated
14.10.2004 in SWP No. 2191/2002 titled Ashok Kumar
Raina vs. State through PDD & Ors and in LPA (SW) 73 of
2003 and LPA (SW) 210 of 2003 filed by the already promoted
Junior Engineers wherein it was directed to include the
petitioner therein in the Seniority List of Junior Engineers
(Civil) PDD issued on 09.12.1992 and in all subsequent lists
with all consequential relief of promotions etc.
e) On 14.11.2007, the High Court passed an order in SWP
1528 of 2001 directing the respondents therein to accord
consideration to the cases of the respondents herein in the
light of the judgment dated 14.10.2004, namely, Ashok
Kumar Raina (supra). The respondents herein made
representation but despite the same the respondents therein
failed to implement the said judgment and their claim has
4
been rejected on the ground that the cadre of JEs (Civil) in
PDD has been closed since 24.09.2007.
f) Being aggrieved, respondents herein filed Contempt
Petition bearing No. 112 of 2009 in SWP No. 1528 of 2001 for
non-compliance of order dated 14.11.2007. By order dated
05.02.2010, the High Court granted last and final opportunity
to the State to reply compliance of the order dated 14.11.2007.
On 29.04.2010, the State filed a Compliance Report rejecting
the consideration of the respondents herein. By order dated
20.05.2010, the High Court, after observing that the
Compliance Report filed by the State is not in consonance with
the directions issued earlier, directed to file a better
affidavit/Compliance Report by showing the names of the
respondents herein in the Seniority List.
g) Against the order dated 20.05.2010, the State filed
APLPA No. 22 of 2010 before the High Court. Vide order dated
18.10.2010, the High Court dismissed the said appeal. The
State again filed an appeal being APLPA No. 23 of 2010
challenging the said order. The Division Bench of the High
5
Court, by order dated 08.12.2010, dismissed the appeal as not
maintainable.
h) Aggrieved by the said decision, the State has filed these
SLPs.
3) Heard Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, learned Senior Addl.
Advocate General and Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior
counsel for the respondents.
4) Though learned Senior Addl. Advocate General appearing
for the State as well as the contesting respondents advanced
arguments about the maintainability of the appeal against the
order passed under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 in view of the fact that the main contempt petition
itself is pending on the file of the learned single Judge of the
High Court, reserving the legal question about the
maintainability of appeal to be considered in an appropriate
case, we feel that the ends of justice would be met by asking
the High Court to dispose of the main contempt petition.
Hence, we request the learned single Judge to dispose of the
main contempt petition being Contempt Petition No. 112 of
2009 in SWP No. 1528 of 2001 one way or the other on merits,
6
after affording opportunity to all the parties concerned
preferably before 30.04.2012.
5) It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on
the merits of the claim of both the parties.
6) With the above direction, the SLPs are disposed of.
..…………….…………………………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)
...…....…………………………………J. (J. CHELAMESWAR)
NEW DELHI; JANUARY 16, 2012.
7