SANJEEV KUMAR,J. - (1.)This intra court appeal is directed against orders dated 25th September, 2019 and 25th November, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in CPSW No.413/2013 titled Farooq Ahmed Sheikh and others. v. Mohd. Afzal Bhat and others.
(2.)Before we consider the rival contentions, a brief reference to factual antecedents leading to the filing of this appeal would be necessary.
The writ petition filed by the respondents registered as SWP No.1373/2012 came to be decided by the learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 17th May, 2013, whereby a direction was issued to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (respondent No.2 in the writ petition) to forward the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 4, complete in all respects, to the administrative department (forest department) within a period of two weeks with further direction to the administrative department to consider the case of the said respondents for regularization of their services and pass appropriate orders within a further period of one month. Similarly, Principal Secretary to Govt., Department of Forest (respondent No.1 in the writ petition) was directed to consider the cases of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for regularization of their services in terms of SRO 64 of 1994, as per the recommendations of appellant No.2 within a period of three months. The Writ Court further directed that the official respondents shall allow the writ petitioners (respondents herein) to continue in services and pay them unpaid wages for the period they had worked and also continue to pay them future wages till decision with regard to their regularization was taken by appellant No.1 (respondent No.1 in the writ petition).

When this judgment was not complied with by the appellants herein, respondents filed a contempt petition i.e. CPSW No.413/2013 arraying the incumbents holding the positions of Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Forest Department and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. Later on Mr. Navin Choudhary, Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Finance Department was also arrayed as respondent. On being put on notice, compliance report on behalf of Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Forest Department was filed before the learned Single Judge. Along with the compliance report, a detailed speaking order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu was also placed on record. It was contended on behalf of the forest department that the judgment insofar as official of forest department are concerned, stood complied with. The compliance report submitted by the Commissioner/Secretary, Forest Department came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, who vide its order dated 25th September, 2019 rejected the compliance report and found the order of rejection dated 07.04.2017 not in consonance or in compliance with the judgment dated 17th May, 2013. The learned Single Judge, thus, directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondents for regularization and pass appropriate orders and for that purpose granted eight weeks time. This was done by the learned Single Judge vide order impugned dated 25th September, 2019.

On 25th November, 2019, when the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, Mr. Ayjaz Lone, appearing for the appellants sought further three weeks' time to comply with order dated 25th September, 2019. Learned Single Judge while granting time to the appellants to file compliance report also provided that in case the compliance was not filed on or before the next date, Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Forest Department shall have to explain each and every day's delay in filing compliance commencing from 25th September, 2019. The appellants are aggrieved of both the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.09.2019 and 25.11.2019 and are before us by way of instant appeal.

(3.)Mr. M.P.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this appeal. He would submit that the orders impugned are the orders of moment passed by the learned Single Judge during the course of hearing the contempt petition and, therefore, not 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. He would further submit that under the Contempt of Courts Act, appeal would lie only if the impugned order is passed in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction for punishing the contemnor.