Srinagar- Observing that judicial orders are intended to have practical effect and cannot be formalities, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Saturday upheld an order directing a private educational institution, Woodland House School here, to comply with an earlier interim direction to release 50 percent salary dues to a former employee, while dismissing the educational institution’s petition with costs of Rs 25,000.
A Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal ruled that interim court orders are executable under Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and rejected the contention that the respondent’s only remedy was under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC for alleged disobedience of an injunction. The case arose from a civil suit filed by Shakeel Ahmad, who sought recognition as a supervisor and release of salary benefits. During the pendency of the suit, the trial court on June 14, 2022 directed the school to pay 50 percent of his salary from April 2021 till May 11, 2022, subject to an undertaking that the amount would be refunded if he ultimately failed in the suit.
The school challenged the order before the appellate court and later before the High Court, but both forums upheld the interim direction. Despite this, the school allegedly failed to comply, prompting the respondent to initiate execution proceedings.
The High Court observed that the petitioners had repeatedly resisted implementation of the order through successive rounds of litigation. It held that Section 36 CPC extends execution provisions applicable to decrees to court orders as well, including interim orders.
Rejecting the school’s arguments, the Court said that pendency of a review petition does not automatically stay the operation of an order unless a specific stay is granted. It further held that enforcement of the interim salary order would not amount to granting final relief because the direction was provisional and subject to the outcome of the suit.
The court described the petition as an attempt to delay compliance with a binding judicial order and said repeated challenges to substantially settled issues could not be encouraged.
“If a party against whom a subsisting monetary direction has been issued is permitted to withhold compliance and yet contend that the successful litigant must wait until final disposal of the suit, the efficacy of the Court’s interim jurisdiction would stand seriously undermined,” the court said underling that the purpose of interim relief is to afford immediate protection pending final adjudication.
“Such protection would become wholly illusory if the Court were rendered powerless to secure compliance with its own directions.” The Court said that it cannot ignore the manner in which the present proceedings have been pursued by the petitioners (school). Instead of complying with the judicial directions issued by the competent Courts, the petitioners have continued to resist implementation of the same through successive rounds of litigation. The present petition substantially seeks to reopen issues which already stand concluded by orders passed by the appellate Court as well as by this Court.
“The conduct of the petitioners leaves little room for doubt that the present proceedings have been instituted primarily to avoid compliance with the subsisting judicial directions and to delay payment of the amount directed to be paid under the order dated 14.06.2022.”
The Court dismissed the petition and directed the school to deposit Rs 25,000 as costs with the Registry within two weeks. It also permitted the executing court to adopt all lawful measures to enforce the salary payment order in case of continued non-compliance.
The High Court expressed concern over inaccurate judicial citations and the growing use of artificial intelligence tools in legal research. The Court directed that any citation, precedent, extract or legal proposition generated through AI platforms must be independently verified from authentic sources before being relied upon in judicial orders.
The Registrar Judicial has been directed to circulate the judgment among all judicial officers in the Union Territory for compliance and guidance. (KO)
