##PAGE1##

Sr. No. 32

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

WP(C) No. 3658/2025

Pronounced on: 24.12.2025

Uploaded on: 26.12.2025

Shaleen Kabra and ors. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG

Vs

Tofeeq Raiyaz .…. Respondent(s)

Through:

Coram: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE

(ORDER

24.12.2025

Shahzad Azeem-J

1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking

quashment of order dated December 02, 2025 passed by the

learned Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, Jammu

(the Tribunal) in Contempt Petition, C.P No. 223/2025 titled,

Tofeeq Raiyaz Vs. Jal Shakti Department, whereby bailable

warrants came to be issued against the petitioners herein,

(respondents/contemnors before the Tribunal), on finding

persistent non-compliance of the order dated January 29, 2025

passed in OA No. 1671/2023 whereby respondents/contemnors

WP(C) No. 3658/2025 Page 1 of 5

were directed to consider the claim of the respondent herein

(applicant before the Tribunal) for compassionate appointment

on the ground that deceased father of the applicant had worked

as daily wager worker for 19 years before his death and was

eligible for regularisation.

2. Succinctly stated, facts for the present are that the Late

father of the respondent-Toufeeq Raiyaz was engaged as daily

wager worker in the Public Health Engineering Department

(PHE), who died on February 22, 2021, after rendering 19 years

of service as such. Thereupon, the respondent-applicant stated

to have approached the petitioners herein for his appointment

on compassionate grounds, however, same did not find favour

with the petitioners, resultantly, request for appointment on

compassionate ground came to be rejected. Accordingly,

respondent filed OA No. 1671/2023, titled, Toufeeq Raiyaz Vs.

UT of J&K and ors, before the Tribunal and same was allowed

vide order dated January 29, 2025, whereby petitioners were

directed to consider the case of the respondent-applicant for

compassionate appointment. This order was challenged by way

of writ petition, but the writ petition, was dismissed by a

co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated September 26,

2025.

WP(C) No. 3658/2025 Page 2 of 5

3. The petitioners when failed to comply with the order of

the Tribunal, which was upheld by the High Court, the

respondent-applicant has filed contempt petition before the

Tribunal, however, despite the petitioners were granted

opportunity to comply with the order subject matter of contempt

petition, they neither complied with the order nor caused the

appearance, therefore, the Tribunal passed impugned order

dated December 02, 2025 whereby process came to be issued to

secure the presence of contemnors.

4. The petitioners have assailed the order dated December

02, 2025 mainly on the ground that despite the Tribunal has

been apprised that they are in process of filing Special Leave

Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but process has been

issued, particularly without ascertaining, as to whether or not

there is any willful disobedience on the part of the petitioners,

therefore, order impugned is bad in law.

5. Admittedly, the order non-compliance whereof led to the

filing of contempt petition was upheld by the High Court and

when contemnors failed to comply with the order passed in OA

and also did not cause appearance, the impugned order came to

be passed just to secure their presence, therefore, by virtue of

WP(C) No. 3658/2025 Page 3 of 5

the impugned order, neither has anyone been punished, nor has

any issue been finally adjudicated that gave the contemnors

cause to approach this Court, notwithstanding the order sought

to be implemented was upheld by the High Court.

6. In our opinion, mere apprisal to the Tribunal about the

intention of the department to file SLP does not exempt the

contemnors from filing the response or grant immunity to

abstain from participating in the contempt proceedings before

the Tr