SHOKAT AHMED SHAWL v. ROHIT KANSAL,PR.SECY.P.H.E.AND ORS.
Court: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir judgment dated 2026-02-23. SHOKAT AHMED SHAWL v. ROHIT KANSAL,PR.SECY.P.H.E.AND ORS. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
Regular List Serial No. 43 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CPSW No. 104/2016 In APSWP 123/2015 Date of pronouncement : 23. 02. 2026 Uploaded on : 23. 02. 2026 Shokat Ahmed Shawl …. Petitioner Through:- None. V/s Rohit Kansal & Ors. ….. Respondents Through:- None. \ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 01. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has sought implementation of order dated 20. 08. 2009 passed by the writ court, whereby the order regarding disengagement of petitioner was set-aside and the petitioner was directed to be taken back in service with immediate effect and his case for regularization was directed to be processed in terms of judgment dated 11. 12. 1998 passed in SWP No. 2194/1998. 02. Statement of facts/compliance report stands filed by the respondents.
As per the said statement of facts, the petitioner was allowed to join, whereafter he was asked to perform duties at the main gate of the Divisional Office, PHE CPSW No. 104/2016 Page 1 of 2 Division, Rajouri. It has been submitted that the petitioner, however, did not resume his further duties after submitting his joining report and he has never attended his duties thereafter. It has been submitted that a final notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to resume his duties but, instead of resuming his duties, the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition. 03. As already stated, direction to the respondents was to allow the petitioner to join his duties back upon quashment of his order of disengagement. The respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner was allowed to rejoin his duties but, the petitioner after submitting his joining report, did not resume his duties.
Once the petitioner was allowed to join his duties, the order of the writ court stands complied. Because the petitioner did not resume his duties, therefore, his case could not have been processed for regularization. 04. The judgment of the writ court, as such, stands complied with. Thus, no case for proceeding against the respondents is made out. The contempt proceedings are closed and the petition is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected application(s), if any. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 23. 02. 2026 Bunty Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes/No Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No Bunty Kumar 2026. 02. 09 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and CPSW No. 104/2016 Page 2 of 2 integrity of this document
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.