[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kishna Ram Gawariya vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14190) on 25 March, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:14190]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Contempt No. 589/2022
Kishna Ram Gawariya, R/o Baliyawas, Near Water Tank, Jayal,
Dist. Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Sudhanshu Panth, Principal Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Rakesh Luhadiya, Chief Engineer (Admn.) Public Health
Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Himanshu Govil, Superintending Engineer, Public Health
And Engineering Department, Division Nagaur, Dist.
Nagaur
5. Ranveer Bangra, Assistant Engineer, Public Health And
Engineering Department, Sub Division, Jayal, Dist.
Nagaur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Ojha with
Mr. Danish Sherani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Vyas for Mr. P.S.
Chundawat
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
25/03/2026
1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging
disobedience of order dated 21.01.2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.11910/2020.
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:18:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14190] (2 of 5) [WCP-589/2022]
2. Counsel for the respondents submits that the representation
as filed by the petitioner has been decided vide order dated
07.03.2024 (Annex.R/1) and hence, no contempt is made out.
3. Counsel for the petitioner however submits that vide order
dated 21.01.2021, the petitioner was directed to be given the Pay
Scale in terms of the judgment in Sohan Lal Mathur Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3631/2008
(decided on 17.11.2008) whereas vide order dated 07.03.2024,
the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, which is
clearly in disobedience of order dated 21.01.2021.
4. Heard the counsels.
5. While deciding Writ Petition No.11910/2020, the Court
observed and held as under:
"4. In view of the above, the instant writ
petition is allowed and the respondents are
directed to give all the entitlement available to
the petitioner strictly in terms of the judgment
rendered in the case of Sohanlal Mathur
(supra).
5. The petitioner herein shall file his
representation claiming the pay-scale in terms
of judgment of Sohanlal Mathur (supra) along
with the certified copy of the order instant.
6. The respondents shall do the needful
within a period of eight weeks from receiving
the same.
7. The stay application also stands
disposed of accordingly."
6. A review petition was filed by the State Authorities (S.B.
Review Petition (Writ) No.56/2021) against order dated
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:18:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14190] (3 of 5) [WCP-589/2022]
21.01.2021. Vide order dated 25.05.2023, while dismissing the
review petition, the Court observed and held as under:
"1. The present review petition is directed
against the order dated 21.01.2021, passed
by this Court in writ petition filed by the
respondent.
2. A perusal of the order under
consideration reveals that though learned
counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance
on the judgment rendered in case of Sohanlal
Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.3631/2008, decided on
17.11.2008, which has been affirmed by the
Apex Court in SLP (Civil)No.14932/2012, while
disposing of the writ petition, this Court has
not given any finding about the
petitioner's case being covered by the
judgments relied upon and has only
directed the present petitioners to
consider respondent's representation in
terms of the judgment rendered in the
case of Sohan Lal (supra).
3. Hence, this Court does not find any
error apparent on the face of the record
because rights of the respondent have not
been decided. Obviously, the petitioners shall
be free to decide respondent's representation
in accordance with law while considering the
referred judgment.
4. The review petition is, therefore,
dismissed."
7. A bare perusal of the above order reflects that vide the same
it was clarified by the Court that it had not given any finding to
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:18:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14190] (4 of 5) [WCP-589/2022]
the effect that the petitioner is covered by the judgment in the
case of Sohanlal Mathur (supra). Rather only a direction was
passed to consider the representation of respondent therein
(petitioner herein) in terms of the judgment rendered in the case
of Sohanlal Mathur (supa). The Court further observed that the
State Authorities shall be free to decide the representation in
accordance with law.
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the clear view that once
the Court which passed order dated 21.01.2021 itself clarified that
it had directed only for decision of the representation of the
petitioner in light of Sohanlal Mathur, rejection of the
representation of the petitioner cannot be termed to be a
disobedience of order dated 21.01.2021.
9. Counsel for the petitioner however relied upon order dated
16.12.2024 passed in the present contempt petition whereby the
Court observed that the petitioner's case was covered by the
adjudication made in the case of Sohanlal Mathur and the
competent authority was given liberty to decide only the pay scale
which the petitioner was entitled to.
10. However, in the above order, no reference of order dated
25.05.2023 has been made. It seems that order dated 25.05.2023
was not brought to the knowledge of the Court on 16.12.2024. Be
that as it may.
11. After perusing order dated 25.07.2023 and order dated
16.12.2024 passed in the present contempt petition and further
order dated 21.01.2021 passed in writ petition, this Court is of the
opinion that vide order dated 21.01.2021, the petitioner was
directed to file his representation claiming the pay scale in terms
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:18:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14190] (5 of 5) [WCP-589/2022]
of Sohanlal Mathur and the respondents were directed to give
the entitlement available to the petitioner strictly in terms of
Sohanlal Mathur. The only conclusion that can be drawn from
the said direction is that after filing of the representation by the
petitioner, if he was found entitled to be covered by Sohanlal
Mathur, he was to be accorded the benefit thereof.
12. It is an admitted fact that vide order dated 07.03.2024
(Annexure-R/1), the petitioner has not been held entitled for the
benefit in terms of Sohanlal Mathur and his representation has
therefore been rejected.
13. In view thereof, when the representation of the petitioner
stands rejected, no disobedience of order dated 21.01.2021 can
be made out. The petitioner definitely would be at liberty to raise
his grievance, if any, against order dated 07.03.2024 vide fresh
writ petition. By no means, the present contempt petition can be
entertained and the same is hence, dismissed.
14. Rule stands discharged.
(REKHA BORANA),J
2-Arvind/-
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:18:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
