Dismissed

Babu Lal Yadav v. Shri Sudarshan Sethi and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2018CCP/164/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his regularization application via contempt proceedings. The Court held contamination suitable is barred as the rejection was based on _prima facie_ sound legal grounds.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is dismissed. The petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the order dated 14.3.2018 via appropriate proceedings.

Babu Lal Yadav Vs Shri Sudarshan Sethi and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.164/2018

¶3

Babu Lal Yadav S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Yadav, aged about 50 years, R/o Village And Post Butiyana, Teh. Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri Sudarshan Sethi, Principal Secretary To The Govt. Of Rajasthan, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.

¶7

Shri Rohit Kumar, Secretary Cum Commissioner , Rural Development And Panchayti Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

Shri Ansudeep, Chief Executive Officer , Zila Parishad Alwar

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Govt. Of Rajasthan , Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anurag Sharma, AAG with Mr.Krishnaveer Singh

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶13

Order

¶14

06/07/2018

¶15

Contempt of the order dated 16.2.2017 passed by the Court in SBCWP No.6588/2013 at the instance of the petitioner is alleged. Therein this Court had directed that the petitioner’s case for regularization be considered and in the event the petitioner was not regularized he at-least be paid the minimum in the payscale as applicable to the post of Driver in the State Government.

¶16

Pursuant to the order dated 16.2.2017 a representation was indeed made by the petitioner. That was however dismissed vide order dated 14.3.2018 on the ground that neither was the

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CCP-164/2018]

¶19

petitioner appointment against a sanctioned post nor had he completed 10 years of continuous uninterrupted services as on 10.04.2006.

¶20

Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, counsel for the petitioner has serious misgivings about the merits of the order dated 14.3.2018 rejecting the petitioner’s representation.

¶21

Be at it may, I am of the considered view that it is not for this Court in the contempt jurisdiction to address the merits of the order dated 14.3.2018 whereby the petitioner’s representation for regularization on the post of Driver has been rejected, more so when the rejection is prima facie neither reckless nor arbitrary nor malafide. The order has been passed on the respondent’s understanding of the ratio decidendi in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Uma Devi & Others reported in [(2006)4 SCC 1].

¶22

The petitioner if aggrieved, has the remedy of challenging the order passed on his representation on 14.3.2018 rejecting his prayer for regularization, in appropriate proceedings before the competent Court.

¶23

Even while the petitioner’s representation for regularization was dismissed on 14.3.2018, prior thereto vide order dated 9.3.2018 the petitioner has given the benefit of minimum pay scale as applicable to the post of Driver in the department; where the petitioner is engaged in that capacity and also paid due arrears.

¶24

In the facts of the case the contempt petition cannot sustain. Dismissed.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CCP-164/2018]

¶27

The petitioner shall however be at liberty to challenge the order dated 14.3.2018 rejecting his representation for regularization on the post of Driver with the respondents.

¶28

(ALOK SHARMA), J

¶29

Himanshu/92

Babu Lal Yadav v. Shri Sudarshan Sethi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Lal Yadav v. Shri Sudarshan Sethi and Ors.

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

Raunak Jain Vs Shri D B Gupta and Ors.

N L Gupta Vs Motilal Saini

Surya Dev Singh Chhapola Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs Sh Nihal Chand Goyal and Ors.

Brij Mohan and Ors. Vs Shri Ravi Jain and Anr.

Amrit Lal Jatav Vs Shri Rajeshwar Singh and Ors.