NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.19493 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.17621/2017]

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR                  APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

MOHAMMAD MEHRAJ-UD-DIN KHAN & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. The State of Jammu and Kashmir approached this Court challenging the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir  at  Srinagar.   The  matter  has  a  chequered history.  However, given the nature of the order we propose to pass and having regard to the intervening developments, it is not necessary to go into those details. 3. The  issue  pertains  to  the  appointment  of Respondent  No.1  in  the  Kashmir  Administrative Service.  The learned Single Judge held in favour of Respondent  No.1  and  at  a  later  stage  the  learned Single Judge went to the extent of imposing costs of

1

Rs.20,000/-,  and  also  initiating  contempt proceedings.  The State did not succeed before the Division  Bench  in  the  appeal  and,  thus,  they  are before this Court. 4. In  view  of  the  earnest  efforts  taken  by  Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Advocate General of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, ably assisted by Mr Shoeb Alam, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Jammu and Kashmir,  the  entire  disputes  have  been  given  a quietus.  What remain now are only three things, (i) order  regarding  costs,  (ii)  fate  of  contempt proceedings and (iii) the arrears. 5. As far as the third issue is concerned, learned Advocate General appearing for the State assures this Court that arrears are being worked out and the same would be paid to Respondent No.1 expeditiously and in any  case before  his retirement  from service.   The submission  of  the  learned  Advocate  General  is recorded. 6. As far as contempt is concerned, having regard to the developments leading to the implementation of the judgment in letter and spirit, we are of the view that the proceedings are to be dropped. Therefore, the contempt proceedings are dropped and the rule is discharged. 7. As  far  as  imposition  of  costs  is  concerned, having regard to the steps taken by the State, though belatedly,  and  taking  into  consideration  the apologetic  stand  taken  by  the  State  before  this Court, we are of the view that the order of costs also should be vacated.  Ordered accordingly. 8. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.

2

9. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 10. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [AMITAVA ROY]  

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 21, 2017.

3