IN a significant observation, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that disputes over seniority and retrospective promotions cannot be reopened or re-fixed through contempt proceedings, dismissing two Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) filed by the employees of the Forest Department.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal was hearing LPA No. 236/2025 and LPA No. 246/2025 filed by Tariq Ahmad Wani and Salim Mushtaq Sheikh, who had questioned a Single Judge’s order closing their contempt petitions arising out of a promotions dispute in the Forest Department.
The appellants, belonging to the ministerial/Class-IV cadre, had earlier approached the Writ Court seeking consideration for promotion as Forest Guards with effect from the date their alleged juniors were promoted. The Single Judge, while disposing of those writ petitions, had directed the authorities to consider their cases for promotion “along with other eligible employees” in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and to take a decision within two months.
Alleging non-compliance with that direction, the appellants later filed contempt petitions, contending that similarly placed employees had been granted retrospective promotion as Forest Guards from 2009 onwards, while they were denied the same benefit. They asserted that their right to promotion had “accrued and crystallised” in 2009 and that juniors had been favoured despite the court’s earlier order.
The Single Judge, after considering the compliance report and the subsequent orders passed by the department, held that the earlier writ directions stood complied with and that issues relating to the correctness of seniority lists and promotion orders could not be adjudicated in contempt jurisdiction. The contempt petitions were accordingly closed, with liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedies before the appropriate forum if they felt aggrieved by the fresh seniority determination or alleged discrimination.
The Division Bench, however, found no merit in the appeals. It noted that the original writ judgment did not contain any “positive or specific direction” to promote the appellants with retrospective effect or on the basis of a particular seniority list. The direction was limited to considering their claim for promotion along with other eligible employees in accordance with the rules. Reiterating the settled legal position, the Bench held that contempt jurisdiction is confined to examining whether there has been willful or deliberate disobedience of a court’s order; it cannot be converted into a forum for re-fixation of seniority, re-appreciation of service records or rewriting of promotion policies.
The court further noted that the Single Judge had already safeguarded the appellants’ interests by expressly granting them liberty to challenge the seniority position, the promotion of alleged juniors or any discriminatory treatment before the competent forum. In such circumstances, there was no justification to interfere with the order under appeal.Holding that no case of willful disobedience was made out and that the issues raised by the appellants lay outside the scope of contempt proceedings, the Division Bench dismissed both LPAs as devoid of merit.
Follow us
