Disposed

Babu Lal Samota and Ors. v. Shri Ashok Sampatram and Others

Rajasthan HC10 May 2016CCP/1695/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order deals with a Civil Contempt Petition filed for disobedience of an earlier order regarding appointment. Petitioners established that respondents continued their assignment as Krishak Mitra per previous directions. Court found the petition infructuous as no disobedience occurred and disposed of it accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petition held infructuous as respondents complied with previous order by continuing petitioners in assignment.

Babu Lal Samota and Ors. Vs Shri Ashok Sampatram and… — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

1/3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1695/2014

¶5

Babulal Samota & Ors. vs. Shri Ashok Sampatram & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14718/2011

¶6

Date of Order: 10^th May, 2016

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶8

Mr. Brijendra Singh Kachhawa on behalf of Mr. C.P. Sharma, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Mridul Goswami on behalf of Mr. J.M. Saxena, AAG, for the respondents.

¶10

On the joint request made by the learned counsel for the

¶11

parties, hearing of the present contempt petition is pre-poned from 17.5.2016 to today and the matter is taken on board.

¶12

The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to punish the respondents for disobedience of the order dated 4.4.2014 passed by the co-ordiante Bench in various writ petitions, whereby it was ordered as under:-

¶13

“In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners eligible to continue them in the position as before. However, prescription of new age would be applicable prospectively for future appointment. A copy of this

¶14

2/3

¶15

judgment be placed on the file of each writ petition.”

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

¶17

the order of the learned Single Judge has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1395/2014, State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Babu Lal Samota & Ors decided on 7.7.2015. The Division Bench in the appeal preferred by the State has held as under:-

¶18

“5.Learned Single Judge held that even if the petitioners, who are respondents before us, were not appointed by the date the decision was taken in the meeting on 02.09.2011, to enhance the age from 30 to 35 years, their selections would not be affected for appointment, as the process was initiated for their appointment prior to the change of eligibility criteria.

¶19

6.We do not find that learned Single Judge has erred in law in allowing the writ petitions and in directing the petitioners, who were otherwise eligible to be appointed, to be continued in the position as before. The appointment was not by way of regular appointment, and thus, the rigour of law for regular service was not applicable to the selections. Further, we also do not find any rationale for enhancing the minimum age for appointment as 'Krishak Mitra', from 30 to 35 years. The nature of the work assigned to the 'Krishak Mitra', namely to mobilize and to facilitate dissemination of information for agriculture to the farmers, does not appear to have any object with the enhancement of the age, nor any cogent reasons have been disclosed to justify the change of eligibility criteria of age after the applications were invited for selections.

¶20

7.There is no merit in the Special Appeals, which are, accordingly, dismissed.

¶21

3/3

¶22

8.A copy of the judgment will be placed in the connected files.”

¶23

The respondents in their reply has taken a stand that so far petitioners are concerned, they are still continuing with their assignment as Krishak Mitra. Para-II of the reply reads as under:-

¶24

“That as far as the petitioners are concerned, they are still continuing with their assignment as Krishak Mitra and their assignment as Krishak Mitra has not been taken away and hence there is no reason for the petitioners to make allegations and to raise an issue before this Hon'ble Court in contempt petition. The only direction given by this Hon'ble Court is that the petitioners are required to continue in the position as before and directions given by this Hon'ble Court have been obeyed and carried out and in compliance thereof, the petitioners are continuing in the position as before.”

¶25

It is further pleaded in the reply that since the petitioners are continuing on their assignment as Krishak Mitra, and have not been removed, there is no question of their reinstatement.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners has also stated that since the petitioners have been permitted to continue in the service, the present contempt petition has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such.

¶27

Ordered accordingly.

¶28

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) ,J.

¶29

Mak/-

¶30

Babu Lal Samota and Ors. v. Shri Ashok Sampatram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Lal Samota and Ors. v. Shri Ashok Sampatram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogender Kumar Vs State Transport Dep Ors.

Rambeer Singh Vs Shri Rajesh Yadav and Others

Shokin and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Om Prakash T Rivedi Vs Shri Ashutosh Gupta and Others

Smt. Vimla Vs Bali Ram

Icici Lombard Vs Ganga Devi