Anand Kumar vs Shri Gaurav Agarwal (2025:Rj-Jd:1713)
2025 Latest Caselaw 4107 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Anand Kumar vs Shri Gaurav Agarwal (2025:Rj-Jd:1713) on 10 January, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:1713]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Writ Contempt No. 895/2022 Anand Kumar S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Sector No.12, Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, (Posted As School Lecturer (English), Government Senior Secondary School, Damodra, Panchayat Samiti Sam, District Jaisalmer).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Director (Secondary Education), Education Department, Bikaner.

2. Shri Premchand Sankhla, Joint Director, School Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.

3. Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, District Education Officer, Headquarter Secondary Education, Jaisalmer.

4. Shri Poonma Ram, Principal, Government Senior Secondary Schoool, Damodra, Block Sam, District Jaisalmer.

5. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S.Kotwani Mr.Kanish Singhvi Mr. Yash Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak for Mr. B.L.Bhati, AAG Mr. Yogesh Sharma Mr. D.S. Pidiyar Mr. Anil Kumar Bishnoi for Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order

10/01/2025

1. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that

true it is that the respondents have reinstated the petitioner with

effect from 30.11.2023, but they have not paid him the actual

benefits which he is entitled to by virtue of the order dated

27.06.2022 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

[2025:RJ-JD:1713] (2 of 3) [WCP-895/2022]

petitioner's writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.11197/2021.

2. Mr. Chandak, learned counsel for the respondent - State

read the order dated 27.06.2022 so also the Division Bench

judgment and submitted that while interpreting the order, the

State has given actual benefits to the petitioner with effect from

30.11.2023 - the date when he was reinstated; however, the

period between 04.03.2022 upto his actual reinstatement has

been considered only notionally because he has not been held

entitled for actual benefits for such period.

3. He argued that in any case, the State has taken a view as

per its own interpretation and even if this Court finds some

substance in petitioner's contention, the order is open to two

interpretations and hence, it cannot be said that the State

authorities have committed willful disobedience of the order

passed by this Court.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

considering the tenor of order dated 27.06.2022, this Court is of

the view that the State has made substantial compliance of the

order.

5. The arguments advanced by both the parties require

consideration and deliberation; but such exercise cannot be

undertaken in contempt jurisdiction.

6. Notices of contempt are thus, discharged.

7. The petitioner is given a liberty to raise his grievance in

relation to his right to get actual benefits, which the State has not

given to him.

[2025:RJ-JD:1713] (3 of 3) [WCP-895/2022]

8. The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 313-akansha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)