Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CPSW/596/2014 of RAHUL SINGH Vs K.RAJINDERA,IPS AND ORS. on 14 July 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CPSW No. 596/2014 In SWP No. 687/2011 Rahul Singh …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate vs K. Rajindera, IPS and ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Advocate
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CPSW No. 596/2014
In SWP No. 687/2011
Rahul Singh
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate
vs
K. Rajindera, IPS and ors.
.…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Advocate
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
14.07.2026
1. Vide judgment dated 10.09.2014, the writ petition bearing SWP No. 687/2011 was disposed of by this Court by directing the respondents to re-work the merit of the petitioner and take into consideration the marks allocable on the basis of ITI qualification possessed by the petitioner and issue the orders of appointment if he makes up in the merit list. It was further directed that the petitioner shall be appointed in place of the last candidate in the select list whose appointment shall consequently stand quashed. The appointment of the petitioner shall relate back to the date the other similarly situated in the process of selection had been appointed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submitted that the petitioner has been appointed. He further submits that as the appointment of the petitioner has been related back to the other similarly situated selected candidates in the process of selection, in which the petitioner has also participated, therefore, he is entitled to Serial No. 35
2 CPSW No. 596/2014 in SWP No. 687/2011
the consequential benefits also. He further submits that the petitioner’s consequential benefits also include the monetary benefits.
3. There is no such direction for consequential benefits in the judgment dated 10.09.2014. Accordingly, the proceedings in the present contempt petition are closed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy as available under law for seeking consequential benefits.
4. Disposed of.
5. (RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu 14.07.2026 Neha-II
NEHA KUMARI 2026.07.14 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document