- Forest Department Seniority Dispute Settled; Court Clarifies Limits of Contempt Powers
Jammu, November 7: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has reiterated that seniority disputes and retrospective promotions cannot be reopened through contempt proceedings, drawing a clear distinction between compliance enforcement and re-litigation. The ruling came as the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed two Letters Patent Appeals (LPA No. 236/2025 and LPA No. 246/2025) filed by Tariq Ahmad Wani and Salim Mushtaq Sheikh, employees of the Forest Department.
The appellants, both belonging to the ministerial and Class-IV cadres, had earlier approached the Writ Court seeking promotion as Forest Guards from the date their alleged juniors were promoted. The Single Judge had directed the authorities to consider their cases for promotion “along with other eligible employees” under the applicable rules within two months. However, claiming that the direction had not been properly implemented, the employees filed contempt petitions, asserting that their juniors had been granted retrospective promotions while they were left out.
The Forest Department, in its defence, submitted that significant administrative restructuring had taken place following various government circulars and orders. Seniority, which was earlier maintained district-wise under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010, was later revised into a unified seniority list under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. The restructuring also included the re-designation and merger of “Helpers” into the promotional hierarchy, which inevitably altered inter se seniority positions across districts. The department further explained that these changes affected not only the appellants but also other employees across the cadre.
After reviewing the compliance report and departmental orders, the Single Judge concluded that the directions of the writ court had been followed in letter and spirit. The court ruled that any disagreement with the newly prepared seniority lists or promotion orders constituted a separate issue and could not be adjudicated within contempt jurisdiction. The petitions were therefore closed, but the petitioners were given liberty to challenge the revised seniority list and promotion orders through proper legal channels.
Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellants moved the Division Bench, arguing that the departmental restructuring violated their vested rights and that their seniority could not be altered to their detriment. They claimed that the authorities had effectively bypassed the spirit of the writ court’s earlier direction.
The Division Bench, however, rejected these arguments. It observed that the original writ judgment did not direct the government to grant retrospective promotions or confirm a particular seniority list. Instead, it merely required the authorities to “consider” the petitioners’ claims for promotion in accordance with existing rules. Once that direction had been implemented, any challenge to the fairness or correctness of the new seniority list could only be pursued through a fresh legal proceeding.
Emphasizing the limits of contempt jurisdiction, the Bench held that such proceedings cannot be converted into forums for adjudicating service disputes, revising seniority, or rewriting promotion orders. Contempt powers, it said, exist solely to determine whether a court order has been willfully disobeyed. Since no deliberate violation had been established, the Bench upheld the Single Judge’s findings.
The court further noted that the Single Judge had already safeguarded the petitioners’ rights by allowing them to pursue their claims before the competent forum, should they believe that the new seniority arrangements were discriminatory or arbitrary. Given this, the Bench found no justification for interference and dismissed both appeals as devoid of merit.
#JammuAndKashmirHighCourt #SeniorityDispute #ForestDepartmentCase #LegalJudgment #ContemptLaw #ServiceMatters #AdministrativeJustice #JudicialAccountability