Abhinav Swami S/O Shri Mahipal ... vs Dr. Rajeev Mathur The Director ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1327 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/001123]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D. B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 601/2021
                                             In
                     D.B. Special Appeal No. 141/2021

                                             In
                  S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5448/2020

Abhinav Swami S/o Shri Mahipal Swami, aged about 33 years,
R/o 2559, Temple Shri Sita Ram Ji, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur
Rajasthan- 302003
                                                                             ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       Dr.     Rajeev       Mathur,        The     Director         Mody      University
         Lakshmangarh               Sikar,    Rajasthan         332311,         Email   Id
         [email protected]@ac.in.
2.       Vinod       Purohit,          The        Registrar           Mody      University
         Lakshmangarh               Sikar,   Rajasthan.          332311,        Email   Id
         [email protected]@ac.in
3.       State       of     Rajasthan          through         Principal        Secretary,
         Department of Higher and Technical Education, Add.
         Block-IV, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar
         Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur- 302015 (Rajasthan-India).
                                                     ----Respondents/Contemnor

For Petitioner : Mr. Kapil Bardhar Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. A.K. Sharma Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rachit Sharma Advocate and Mr. Tej Pratap Singh Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 01/02/2023

Heard.

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner

alleging willful disobedience of judgment dated 05.03.2021 passed

in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 141/2021.

[2023/RJJP/001123] (2 of 3) [CCP-601/2021]

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the

petitioner was working as Lawn Tennis Coach. Learned counsel

would submit that the appeal was disposed with a clarification that

the respondents shall pay salary to the petitioner for the period in

question as ordered by the learned Single Judge as have been

paid to similarly situated employees. He would further submit

that the respondents themselves have classified the employees in

two categories as academic staff and non-academic staff. They

had paid salary to the non-academic staff. Therefore, in the spirit

of the order of the Court, the petitioner was also entitled to

payment of salary for the intervening period as all non-academic

staff is in the category of similarly situated employees.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondents would submit that the petitioner was a Coach. It is

not the case that any other Coach was given benefit of salary and

the petitioner was singled out for hostile discrimination. The

respondents have formed an opinion that as no other Coach has

been paid salary, it is not a case where the petitioner should be

paid salary and, therefore, his claim has not been accepted.

This Court, while disposing off D.B. Civil Special Appeal

(Writ) No. 141/2021 vide judgment dated 05.03.2021 clarified

that the petitioner would be entitled to payment of salary for the

period in question as has been paid to similarly situated

employees. The word, "similarly situated employees" has not

been clarified. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner

that all non-academic staff should be treated as similarly situated

employees, is a matter for consideration in a separately

constituted writ petition and not in the contempt petition. The

[2023/RJJP/001123] (3 of 3) [CCP-601/2021]

respondents' opinion that no other Coach has been paid salary is

based on understanding of the order of the Court and according to

them, the other employees, who have been paid salary, are not

similarly situated only on the ground that they constituted

category of non-academic staff. Irrespective of the merits of the

claim of the petitioner, in our opinion, present case cannot be said

to be a case of willful disobedience of the order of the Court.

Leaving it open for the petitioner to either seek clarification of

judgment dated 05.03.2021 on the aspect of similarly situated

employees or take recourse to any other remedy available under

the law, this contempt petition is closed.

Rule is discharged.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

MANOJ NARWANI /47

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)