Dismissed

Santokh Singh S/O Fauja Singh v. Naveen Mahajan, Principal Secretary, State of Rajasthan, Jalday Department

Rajasthan HC17 Feb 2020CCP/459/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-compliance with an earlier order requiring action under pension rules for recovery of an amount. The court found no willful disobedience as the matter was under due process of approval by the Governor and dismissed the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; rule discharged; Respondents directed to dispose of the matter within one month.

Santokh Singh S/O Fauja Singh Vs Naveen Mahajan… — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 459/2019

¶3

¶4

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.2012/2017

¶5

Santokh Singh S/o Fauja Singh, Aged About 79 Years, R/o 23/87, Mansarover, Near Cricket Stadium, Jaipur

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Naveen Mahajan, Principal Secretary, State Of Rajasthan, Jalday Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶9

Jaman Lal Jagid, Director, Pension Directorate, Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

¶10

Amarjeet Singh Mehrda, General Chief Engineer, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, Jaisalmer.

¶11

Rajendra Kumar Pareek, Additional Chief Engineer Head Quarter, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, Jaisalmer

¶12

Smt. Kirty Kachhawa, Joint Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Jodhpur

¶13

State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, State Of Rajasthan, Jalday Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd. Ashfaq Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Raghav, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ajay Singh Rajawat Mr. Pankaj Choudhary on behalf of Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Deputy Government Counsel

¶16

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

17/02/2020

(2 of 3)

[CCP-459/2019]

Petitioner has filed the contempt petition alleging that order dated 16.04.2018 passed by this Court has not been complied with.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the order passed by this Court dated 16.04.2018, Governor was to take action under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules of 1996”). No notice has been issued to the petitioner by the Governor so far. Despite grant of six months’ time by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2018, no action was taken by the respondents to do the needful.

¶23

Learned State counsel has opposed the petition and has submitted that in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 20.09.2018, petitioner was called for personal hearing. Thereafter, it was ordered that Rs.7,22,601/- was to be recovered from the petitioner. The matter was forwarded to His Excellency, the Governor for necessary approval in terms of Rules 7 of the Rules. However, the matter was remanded by His Excellency, the Governor with certain objections and now the matter is under consideration.

¶24

Operative part of the order dated 16.04.2018 reads as under:-

¶25

“In view of the above, we are declined to cause interference in the order of recovery of the amount. However, instead of issuing a direction for its return, we give liberty to the State Government to cause a notice to the petitioner for hearing and to quantify the amount of loss, if any. If it is found that quantified amount of loss was at the instance of the petitioner then the recovery can be effected by applying the procedure given under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996.

¶26

With the aforesaid, interference in the impugned order is made, however, appeal is disposed of with the direction given therein. It is made clear that if necessary

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CCP-459/2019]

¶29

action is not initiated within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, it would be presumed that the State is not inclined to take any action in the matter and, in that case, the amount so recovered, would be paid to the petitioner within two months and, if thereafter, then it will carry interest @6% per annum.”

¶30

As per the reply filed by the State, petitioner was called for personal hearing on 20.09.2018 and thereafter it was decided that amount of Rs.7,22,601/- was to be recovered from the petitioner. The matter was forwarded to His Excellency, the Governor for approval in terms of Rules 7 of the Rules. However, the matter was remanded by his Excellency, the Governor with certain objections and now the matter is under consideration with the respondents.

¶31

Hence, we are of the opinion that no further interference by this Court is called for as it cannot be said that the respondents have committed willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 16.04.2018.

¶32

Dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

¶33

However, it is hoped that the respondents will dispose of the matter with regard to the objections received by them within one month from today.

¶34

Copy of this order be supplied to the learned State counsel for necessary compliance.

¶35

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶36

Seema/42

Santokh Singh S/O Fauja Singh v. Naveen Mahajan, Principal Secretary, State of Rajasthan, Jalday Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santokh Singh S/O Fauja Singh v. Naveen Mahajan, Principal Secretary, State of Rajasthan, Jalday Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagoti Devi W/O Sh. Gyarsi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Narayan S/O Shri Murlidhar Vs State of Rajasthan

Salim Sheikh@Salim Vishwas S/O Shri Azdar Ali Vishwas B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan

Sulochana D/O Shri Richpal Singh W/O Shri Mahesh Kumar Vs Shri Mahesh Kumar S/O Shri Pema Ram Dhaka

Villagers of Village Chandpur Vs Shri Rajeshwar Singh

L. R. Bairwa (Retired District Judge) S/O Late Shri Kishan Lal Vs Sh. Satish Kumar Sharma