Rajasthan High Court
Om Prakash S/O Shri Dhuraram Sevda vs State Of Rajasthan Through The ... on 18 October, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:30430]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 763/2023
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6731/2023
Om Prakash S/o Shri Dhuraram Sevda, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o Ward No. 5, Near Kakoda Phatak, Surajgarh, District
Jhunjhunu-333029 (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Local Self
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj)
2. Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Secretary, Local Self
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Shri Hridesh Kumar Sharma, Director Cum Special
Secretary, Directorate Of Local Bodies, Local Self
Government G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme,
Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur Rajasthan.
4. Swati Jha, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Surajgarh,
District Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents/contemnors
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with
Ms. Sara Parveen
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Archana with
Mr. Praval Mishra for
Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
18/10/2023
This contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful
disobedience of the interim order dated 03.05.2023 passed by this
Court whereby, the petitioner was directed to be continued in
services with a further direction not to discontinue the services
only due to filing of the instant writ petition.
[2023:RJ-JP:30430] (2 of 3) [CCP-763/2023]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the
aforesaid interim order, the respondents are not permitting him to
work. He, therefore, prays that the respondents may be directed
to purge the contempt and they may also be punished suitably.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, inviting
attention of this Court towards the order dated 24.04.2023
(Annexure-R/1) passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika,
Surajgarh, would submit that much before passing of the interim
order dated 03.05.2023, contractual services of the petitioner
were already terminated w.e.f. that date. Referring to the relevant
extract of Dispatch Register (Annexure R-4) as also the relevant
extract of the Stamp Register, she submits that the petitioner was
intimated about the order terminating his services through the
registered post. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the
contempt petition.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting
attention of this Court towards the letter dated 10.05.2023
(Annexure CC/6), submitted by him alongwith his counter-affidavit
to reply, submits that therein, although, the Executive Officer,
Nagar Palika, Surajgarh has referred the letter dated 24.04.2023
whereby, he was required to handover charge to Shri Krishan
Kumar Verma, would submit that it does not refer to the order
terminating his services and had his services been terminated vide
order dated 24.04.2023, it would have been mentioned in this
letter. He submits that in view thereof, it is apparent that the
respondents have cooked up the story of termination of his
services vide order dated 24.04.2023.
Heard. Considered.
[2023:RJ-JP:30430] (3 of 3) [CCP-763/2023]
A perusal of the order dated 24.04.2023 filed by the
respondents as Annexure R-1 alongwith the reply, reveals that
services of the petitioner, a contractual employee, were
terminated w.e.f. date of passing of the order. A perusal of the
extract of the Dispatch Register submitted by the respondents
alongwith their reply to the counter-affidavit reveals that the order
terminating services of the petitioner was dispatched from Serial
No.306 to Serial No.310 not only to the petitioner; but, to various
authorities as also to the guard file. The extract of the Stamp
Register whereby, the aforesaid letters were dispatched through
registered post also corroborates the aforesaid fact. Merely
because the letter dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure CC/6) does not
refer the order dated 24.04.2023 terminating the services of the
petitioner, it cannot be assumed by this Court that it is issued as
an afterthought inasmuch as this letter specifically mentions the
order dated even issued to the petitioner for handing over his
charge to another employee with its dispatch number(s) following
the dispatch number(s) of the order terminating the services. In
view thereof, this Court is satisfied that before passing of the
interim order dated 03.05.2023, services of the petitioner were
already discontinued and the respondents cannot be held guilty of
its wilful disobedience.
Resultantly, this contempt petition is dismissed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/48
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
