Dismissed

Mahipal Singh and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Oct 2018WCP/1062/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition alleging defiance of a prior order directing respondents to issue an experience certificate from the date of appointment, the High Court held that the order could not be read in isolation. Absent proof the petitioner actually worked from the initial appointment date, the certificate from a later date did not amount to willful disobedience. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition against the respondents is dismissed. Notices issued to respondents are discharged.

Mahipal Singh and Anr. Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Contempt No. 1062/2017

¶3

Mahipal Singh S/o Shri Pooran Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Post Charli, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Naveen Mahajan, Chief Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Sandesh Nayak, District Collector Cum District Program Coordinator, Sirohi.

¶9

Asha Ram Dudi, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi.

¶10

Dinesh Choudhary, Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Revdar, District Sirohi.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Patel Mr. Vikas Choudhary for Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

04/10/2018

¶16

The petitioner has preferred the present contempt petition inter alia, alleging non-compliance of the order dated 01.05.2017, passed by this Court, whereby the respondents were directed to issue experience certificate to the petitioner in the following terms:-

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[WCP-1062/2017]

¶19

“In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to count the experience of the petitioner from the date of appointment uptill 18.04.2013 in terms of the circular dated 24.03.2017.”

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that despite the order dated 01.05.2017, requiring the respondents to issue an experience certificate from the date of appointment i.e. 13.04.2010, the respondents have issued the certificate dated 08.05.2017 for the period from 26.04.2010 to 18.04.2013.

¶21

He submitted that the order dated 08.05.2017 is in complete defiance of the directions issued by this Court inasmuch as the respondents – contemnors were required to issue the certificate from the date of appointment viz. 13.04.2010.

¶22

Mr. Manish Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Computer Operator with Machine, vide order order dated 13.04.2010 at Gram Panchayat Dattani, Panchayat Samiti Revdar. In pursuance of the said order, after joining and reporting for one day, the petitioner never turned up. He has however reported at Mandor, Shivganj on 26.04.2010 and continued there, for which certificate has been issued.

¶23

In support of his contention, Mr. Patel referred to the attendance register of the concerned Gram Panchayat, which clearly shows that the petitioner has never discharged his duties at Dattani Panchayat Samiti, Revdar.

¶24

He added that when the petitioner’s place of posting was changed and he was posted at Shivganj vide order dated 26.04.2017, he regularly appeared, for which the certificate

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[WCP-1062/2017]

¶27

aforesaid has been issued, showing his experience from 26.04.2010 to 18.04.2013.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no defiance of the order passed by this Court, much less willful disobedience. The order of this Court for grant of experience certificate from the date of appointment cannot be read in isolation. Until or unless the petitioner shows that he has, as a matter of fact, worked from the initial order dated 13.04.2010, he cannot claim a certificate from the date of appointment, merely under the cloak of the language / expression used in the order.

¶29

In this view of the matter, it is clear that the respondents have committed no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, for which the contempt petition is dismissed.

¶30

The notices issued to the respondents – contemnors are hereby discharged.

¶31

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶32

Himanshu/-13

Mahipal Singh and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahipal Singh and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Devi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ved Pal and Ors. Vs Naveen Mahajan and Ors.

Prabhu Dayal Vs Prem Singh Mehra and Ors.

Mahendra Kumar and Anr. Vs Anil Swarup and Ors.

Navish Mathur Vs Madho Lal Meena and Anr.

Gurmit Singh Vs Shikhar Agarwal and Ors.