SURISHTA DEVI AJAY SINGH KOTWAL vs K.A.SHAH COMMY.SECY.G.A.D.AND ORS. — CPSW/29/2017

Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed as Infractuous on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 19-Jul-2017

CNR: JKHC020066932017

Filing Number

CPSW/505/2017

Filing Date

27-Jan-2017

Registration No

CPSW/29/2017

Registration Date

27-Jan-2017

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SB CONTEMPT PETITION ( 113 )

Sub-Category

SWP ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

SERVICE WRIT PETITION (SWP)

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dismissed as Infractuous

Last updated 08-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURISHTA DEVI AJAY SINGH KOTWAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.K.A.SHAH COMMY.SECY.G.A.D.AND ORS.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Summary: Surishta Devi sought contempt proceedings against government authorities for allegedly disobeying a September 2016 court order directing them to consider her compassionate appointment claim. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the petition as infructuous, finding that authorities had already considered and rejected her claim on February 15, 2017, under applicable rules (SRO 43 of 1994 and SRO 302 of 2009), noting she had previously received cash compensation in 2009. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    For Orders After Notice

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur

  4. 19-Jul-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 27-Jan-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. CPSW/29/2017

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Surishta Devi sought contempt proceedings against government authorities for allegedly disobeying a September 2016 court order directing them to consider her compassionate appointment claim. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the petition as infructuous, finding that authorities had already considered and rejected her claim on February 15, 2017, under applicable rules (SRO 43 of 1994 and SRO 302 of 2009), noting she had previously received cash compensation in 2009. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case