Rajendra Kumar Joshi vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5213 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Writ Contempt No. 277/2022

Rajendra Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Ram Chandra Joshi, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of 7, Sankalp, Near Sanwriya Temple, Behind Dangi Factory, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara, Tehsil And District Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Arapana Arora, Presently Posted As Principle Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Kanaram, Presently Posted As Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. Shilpa Singh, Presently Posted As Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.

5. Yogesh Chandra Pareek, Presently Posted As District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Headquarter, Bhilwara.

6. Sabia Bano, Presently Posted As Additional District Education Officer Cum Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Suwana, District Bhilwara.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Inderjeet Yadav
For Respondent(s)        :



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

07/04/2022

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner with a

grievance that the respondents have not complied with the order

passed by this Court on 11.02.2021 in SB Civil Writ Petition

No.2471/2021.

(2 of 3) [WCP-277/2022]

Vide order dated 11.02.2021, this Court has disposed of the

writ petition at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner in

the following manner:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the competent authority to consider and decide petitioner's representation.

In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation, along with photo-stat copy of the earlier representation and certified copy of the order instant within a period of two weeks.

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of representation.

It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditiously redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner.

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly."

The petitioner is complaining that the representation filed by

him has not been decided by the competent authority till date.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after

going through the material available on record, I am of the opinion

that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for initiating

contempt proceedings against the respondents. As a mater of fact,

this Court vide order dated 11.02.2021 has simply directed the

(3 of 3) [WCP-277/2022]

respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner without

deciding the controversy involved in that petition.

Now, the petitioner is claiming that his fixation has not made

by the respondents, though he has filed several representations. If

the petitioner is entitled for pay scales as per his claim, he should

get the controversy adjudicated by the Court and not by way of

this contempt petition.

Hence, this contempt petition is disposed of.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 76-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)