Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shyopat Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14724) on 19 March, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:14724]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Contempt No. 1237/2022
Shyopat Ram S/o Shri Rawat Ram, Aged About 63 Years, Ward
No. 9, Purani Abadi, Shri Karanpur Tehsil Shri Karanpur District
Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Co-Operative
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Shri Megh Raj Singh Ratnu, Registrar, The Co-Operative
Department, Cooperative Societies, Government Of
Rajasthan, Nehru Shakar Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Shri M. R. Khanna, Managing Director, The Ganganagar
Central Cooperative Bank Limited Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. GR Punia, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramavatar Sikhwal and Mr.
Ravindra Choudhary for Mr. NS
Rathore, AAG
Mr. Harish Purohit with
Mr. NR Budania
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
19/03/2025
1. By way of present contempt petition, the petitioner has
alleged non-compliance of the order dated 29.11.2021, passed by
the High Court in petitioner's writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.169/2018.
2. Mr. GR Punia, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the order under consideration (29.11.2021) was
passed by the co-ordinate Bench while relying upon the judgment
dated 17.10.2016 rendered in the case of Amar Singh vs. The
[2025:RJ-JD:14724] (2 of 4) [WCP-1237/2022]
Jalore Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.6996/2014, which has been affirmed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court and even appeal (D.B. Special Appeal Writ
No.123/2022) filed by the respondents against the order under
consideration dated 29.11.2021 has been rejected by the Division
Bench of this Court on 16.05.2022, yet the respondents have not
complied with the order in its letter and spirit and in the guise of
giving effect to the order, they have reduced petitioner's pay from
what he was receiving prior to filing of the writ petition.
3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
respondents had duly taken note of petitioner's last pay drawn
(pay certificate) after verification of the record and the same was
ratified by none other than the Managing Director but now they
have arbitrarily reduced the pay.
4. Mr. Harish Purohit, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the compliance of the order under consideration
has been made by order dated 19.01.2024 and the petitioner has
been given benefit under Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Service Rules,
1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1951'). He added
that while doing so, it had come to the notice of the respondents
that petitioner's last pay which was disclosed by him and which
was taken into consideration by the respondents, was factually
incorrect and it came to their notice only when exercise under
Rule 26A of the Rules of 1951 was undertaken.
5. Mr. Purohit submitted that the order dated 19.01.2024 is
compliance of the order passed in petitioner's writ petition and the
pay now fixed is in accordance with Rule 26A of the Rules of 1951.
He added that maybe the petitioner's salary has been reduced but
[2025:RJ-JD:14724] (3 of 4) [WCP-1237/2022]
that is on account of the fact that his last pay had been wrongly
reckoned i.e. while he was working in the previous society namely,
33-H, Gramseva Sahakari Samiti Ltd.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
perusal of the record including the order under consideration
passed by this Court and the orders placed by the respondents on
record, this Court is of the view that there is no non-compliance or
disobedience of the order passed by this Court much less
deliberate attempt to frustrate the order passed in petitioner's
favour.
7. Having carried out the compliance of the directions issued by
this Court regarding protecting petitioner's pay, requisite orders
have been passed in terms of Rule 26A of the Rules of 1951. If the
order which the respondents have passed, is prejudicial to
petitioner's right or is incorrect as claimed, then proper course for
the petitioner is to lay challenge to such orders in accordance with
law.
8. So far as Mr. Punia's contention that petitioner's pay was
taken into consideration after perusal of the record is concerned,
according to this Court, if any error or omission has come to the
notice of the authority, the same can be corrected. The petitioner
cannot take away respondents' rights of correcting inadvertent
error in determination of petitioner's provisional pay.
9. The respondents cannot for such reason be held guilty of
contempt.
10. Notices of contempt issued to the respondents are hereby
discharged.
11. The present contempt petition is disposed of.
[2025:RJ-JD:14724] (4 of 4) [WCP-1237/2022]
12. The petitioner shall nevertheless be free to challenge the
orders passed by the respondents (Annexure-R/3/1) and
(Annexure-R/3/2) in accordance with law.
13. All interlocutory applications also stand disposed of,
accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
120-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
