Suresh Agarwal S/O Late Shri ... vs Ravishankar Shrivastava X- ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4939 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:23273]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 22/2023
                                   In
               S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.257/2020
Suresh Agarwal S/o Late Shri RaghuveerSaran Agarwal, Aged
About 63 Years, R/o Keshavpada, Hindaun City, Tehsil Hindaun,
Distt. Karauli Rajasthan Adhar Number 6027 0091 7542.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       Ravishankar Shrivastava Ex. President, Rajasthan State
         Road Transport Corporation Head Quarter Jaipur At
         Present President Administrative Tribunal Jaipur.
2.       Sandeep Verma, Managing Director Rajasthan State Road
         Transport Corporation Head Office Chomu House
         Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
3.       Lokesh Kumar Sahal, Executive Director (Traffic)
         Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Head Office
         Chomu House Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
4.       Bahadur Singh Gurjar, Chief Manager Rajasthan State
         Road Transport Corporation Hindaun Aagar District Karauli
         Raj.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner present in person For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order

15/09/2023

This review petition, which is reported to be time barred by

27 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay.

For the reasons stated in the application (969/2023) the

same is allowed. Delay in preferring the review petition is

condoned.

This review petition has been filed seeking review and recall

of the order dated 04.04.2023 passed by this Court in SB Civil

Contempt Petition No.257/2020.

[2023:RJ-JP:23273] (2 of 4) [CRW-22/2023]

The review petitioner submits that while dismissing the

contempt petition, this Court did not appreciate that compliance of

the order dated 23.03.2017 was made with delay of about 4

years. He further submits that the factum of his acquittal in the

criminal case was not taken into consideration. He, therefore,

prays that the review petition be allowed, the order dated

04.04.2023 be recalled and the contempt petition be restored to

its original number.

Heard. Considered.

The contempt petition was filed alleging willful disobedience

of the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by this Court whereby,

while allowing the writ petition filed by the review petitioner and

quashing the punishment order dated 10.05.2006 and the

appellate order dated 20.06.2007, the respondent-Corporation

was directed to compulsorily retire the petitioner with continuity of

service and all consequential benefits from the date of order. It

was directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to only 50%

actual wages and remaining wages shall be treated as notional.

A perusal of the order-sheets of the contempt petition

reveals that on 24.08.2022, the respondents have filed the

compliance report. On 12.10.2022, on his request, the petitioner

was granted time to file counter to the compliance report. On

23.11.2022, this Court directed the respondents to produce

statements of due drawn salary month wise and year wise to

ascertain 50% of the same. In pursuance whereof, the same were

filed by the respondents on 01.12.2022. On 13.01.2023, two

cheques worth ₹1,02,818/- and ₹2,45,059 drawn in favour of the

petitioner were handed over to him and he was granted time to

[2023:RJ-JP:23273] (3 of 4) [CRW-22/2023]

file counter/reply. On next date, i.e., 02.03.2023, the Officer In-

charge on behalf of the respondents submitted that the order

dated 23.03.2017 has been complied with in its entirety

whereupon, the petitioner was granted three weeks' time to file an

affidavit containing details of the payment yet to be made by the

respondents. As per order-sheet dated 27.03.2023, instead of

filing any affidavit, the petitioner had filed a synopsis dated

17.03.2023 which did not contain detail of any payment which was

due. However, in the interest of justice, he was granted one more

opportunity to do so. On next date, i.e., 04.04.2023, on his failure

to substantiate his allegation that complete payment has not been

made, the contempt petition was dismissed.

Thus, it is apparent that on failing to satisfy this Court that

the order dated 23.03.2017 was not complied with despite giving

a number of opportunities to do so, the contempt petition was

dismissed.Today also, no such statement has been made that the

respondents have not made any payment due under the order

dated 23.03.2017; rather, it is contended that the compliance was

made with delay. Even if the payment was with delay, if the Court

closed the contempt proceeding being satisfied that there was

substantial compliance, it is no ground to rehear the matter on

merit. In view thereof, the first contention made by the review

petitioner does not merit acceptance.

So far as his second contention with regard to acquittal is

concerned, the review petitioner has not been able to satisfy this

Court that how the factum of acquittal has any bearing on the

issue and requires recalling of the order dated 04.04.2023. Even

[2023:RJ-JP:23273] (4 of 4) [CRW-22/2023]

otherwise also, no such averment was made by him at the time of

passing of the order dated 04.04.2023.

Since, the review petitioner has not been able to satisfy this

Court that the order dated 04.04.2023 suffers from any error

apparent from the face on record, this review petition is dismissed

being devoid of merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Manish/82

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)