Judgment · High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled Abdul Qayoom Guroo vs. Ajeet Kumar Sahoo and Others, CCP(S) No.144/2020, decided on 29.09.2021, has, while considering the question as to whether Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985…
- Para 44. In view of the aforesaid ratio laid down by this Court, the instant petition is held to be not maintainable. The same is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of an application under Section 17…
Judgment
Through: Ms.Mariya vice Mr.Syed Faisal Qadiri, Advocate V/s PARVEEZ KOUL & ANOTHER ….. Respondent(s) Through: Mr.Mubashir Majid Malik, Dy.AG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 04.12.2024
#1. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has complained about the violation of interim order dated 01.06.2022 passed by this Court in WPC No.1128/2022, whereby, the impugned order was stayed and the respondents were directed to release the withheld salary of the petitioner forthwith. Respondents were further directed not to take any action against the petitioner pursuant to any recommendation(s) of the Committee till final disposal of the case.
#2. It is submitted that the main writ petition stands transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal in terms of order dated 13.09.2024 passed by this Court. CCP(S) No. 36 of 2024 Page 1 of 2
#3. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled Abdul Qayoom Guroo vs. Ajeet Kumar Sahoo and Others, CCP(S) No.144/2020, decided on 29.09.2021, has, while considering the question as to whether Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 [“the Act”] has power and authority under Section 17 of the Act to punish for contempt in relation to an interim order passed by the High Court in a writ petition, which was subsequently transferred to it under Section 29 of the Act, held that contempt proceedings in relation to orders passed by this Court in the petitions, which subsequently stand transferred to the Tribunal under Section 29 of the Act, shall lie only and only before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act.
#4. In view of the aforesaid ratio laid down by this Court, the instant petition is held to be not maintainable. The same is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of an application under Section 17 of the Act read with Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992.
#5. JUDGE (SANJAY DHAR) SRINAGAR 04.12.2024 Sarveeda Nissar Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No CCP(S) No. 36 of 2024 Page 2 of 2 Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 05.12.2024 17:27
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.