SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has closed contempt proceedings against government officials over the implementation of a 2018 judgment concerning the seniority and promotions of a woman law officer, ruling that the authorities could not be held guilty of wilful disobedience when the judgment contained no specific direction on her claim for promotion as Additional Secretary from 2011.
Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the order on October 12 in a contempt petition filed by Renu Mahajan against Achal Sethi, Secretary to the Government, Law Department, and another official.
The court observed that the government had complied with the 2018 judgment by revising Mahajan’s seniority and granting her retrospective promotional benefits. It held that the absence of an explicit direction regarding her promotion to Additional Secretary from 2011 meant the respondents could not be found guilty of contempt on that ground.
The dispute arose from two writ petitions filed by Mahajan, which were decided by a common judgment on January 30, 2018. The court had set aside the seniority list issued through Government Order No. 2129-LD(Estt) of 2015, dated July 20, 2015, to the extent that it placed a private respondent above her in Category-D of Legal Assistants.
The authorities were directed to redraw the seniority list by placing Mahajan at the first position and the private respondent at the second position. They were also directed to extend promotional benefits to both in accordance with the revised seniority, subject to fulfilment of other eligibility requirements.
In its latest compliance report, dated March 28, 2026, the government stated that Mahajan’s seniority had been revised and the dates of her promotions and regularisation at different levels had been adjusted accordingly.
The authorities also referred to Government Order No. 8838-JK(LD) of 2025, dated July 25, 2025, under which sanction was accorded to promotional benefits, including salary arrears and pensionary benefits, in accordance with her revised seniority.
According to the government, Rs 9,66,572 had been credited to Mahajan’s account towards salary arrears, while her revised pension had been fixed by the office of the Principal Accountant General through a letter dated November 20, 2025.
Mahajan, however, contended that the government had addressed only the seniority dispute and had failed to give full effect to the reliefs sought in her other writ petition, particularly her claim for promotion to the post of Additional Secretary with effect from April 29, 2011.
She submitted that Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh had been promoted to the post on that date, although, according to her, the post was earmarked for members of the erstwhile Law Officer Service, which was amalgamated with the J&K Legal (Gazetted) Service with effect from August 26, 2010.
Mahajan argued that the retrospective effect subsequently given to her promotions as Law Officer and Senior Law Officer made her eligible for consideration for promotion to Additional Secretary from the date her junior was promoted. She said she had instead been promoted to the post with effect from May 22, 2013, affecting her subsequent promotional claims to the posts of Special Secretary and Secretary as well.
Examining the two writ petitions and the 2018 judgment, Justice Dhar observed that the principal issue decided at the time was the relative seniority of Mahajan and the private respondent in the Legal Assistant category.
The court noted that the earlier judgment had neither discussed nor issued any direction on Mahajan’s claim for promotion to Additional Secretary with effect from 2011 or 2012.
It acknowledged that retrospective promotions to the posts of Law Officer and Senior Law Officer might have made her eligible for consideration for promotion to Additional Secretary in 2011, when Sheikh was promoted. However, it said the absence of a specific judicial direction on that issue, coupled with the fact that Sheikh was not a party to either writ petition, could reasonably have left the authorities uncertain about their obligations.
The court reiterated that contempt proceedings require wilful failure to comply with a court order. Where judicial directions admit of more than one plausible interpretation and an authority adopts a reasonable interpretation, such conduct cannot automatically be treated as wilful disobedience.
Holding that the respondents had complied with the directions concerning seniority and retrospective promotional benefits, the High Court closed the contempt proceedings in CCP(S) No. 629/2019arising out of SWP No. 1042/2014.
