Rajasthan High Court
Dr. Anju Dhadda Misra D/O Late Sh. ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1190/2022
1. Dr. Anju Dhadda Misra D/o Late Sh. Ghasimal Dhadda,
Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of A 212, Shivanand
Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 302017.
2. Dr. Meenakshi Bharti D/o Late Sh. O.P. Kasliwal, Resident
Of 148, Vinoba Vihar, Jagatpura Road, Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Higher
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Sh. Bhawani Singh Detha, Secretary, Higher Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Sh. Sunil Sharma, I.A.S, Commissioner College
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Shri Vimal Kumar Bhatia, Secretary Managing Committee,
Kanoria Mahila Mahavidhyalaya, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur (Raj.) 302004.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta, Advocate for
Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Judgment / Order
15/12/2022
Mr. Prakhar Gupta, learned counsel on behalf of Dr. V.B.
Sharma, AAG enters appearance on behalf of Department of
College Education.
(2 of 3) [CCP-1190/2022]
Let a copy of petition, if not already supplied, be supplied to
learned counsel for the Respondents.
Heard.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and going
through the background of the case in which various orders came
to be passed by this Court as also a detailed common order
passed by this Court on 01.12.2021 in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition
No. 740/2016 and batch of contempt petitions arising out of the
similar issue, at present, instead of initiating contempt
proceedings against the respondents, we are inclined to dispose
off this contempt petition also on the similar lines as the order
passed on 01.12.2021 in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.
740/2016 and batch of contempt petitions with following
directions:-
1. It shall be an obligation on the part of the Commissioner,
College Education to immediately release the dues payable to the
petitioners as per the directions issued by this Court from time to
time and the directions which have already been issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.09.2021 in the case of State of
Rajasthan Versus Manju Saxena & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal
(C) No. 13791/2019, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
directed compliance to be made within a period of eight weeks.
2. A brief, but clear order regarding compliance of the order in
respect of each of the contempt petitioners will have to be passed
by the concerned Directorate within a period of ten weeks from
today.
3. The orders in respect of each of the contempt petitioners,
which are required to be passed clearly stating compliance of the
order, shall be reported directly to the Registry of this Court,
(3 of 3) [CCP-1190/2022]
which shall be placed before this Court under a separate
registered case.
4. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this contempt
petition, at this stage, is disposed off, however, with liberty to
revive, if any grievance still remains unredressed.
We must make it absolutely clear that if ultimately we find
that despite the order, the benefits, which the petitioners were
entitle to, have not been released, this Court may take a very
serious view of the matter and erring officials will have to be
proceeded against strictly in accordance with law resulting in all
serious consequences, which the case may deserve.
All the authorities including the Secretariat of the
Department of Higher Education as also the private school
education officials shall be under an obligation to provide
necessary information, if any, demanded by Commissionerate of
College Education, towards compliance of the order of the Court.
Non-cooperation shall be treated as an act of over reaching the
order of the Court.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J
Mohita /80
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
