Dismissed

Dr. Ranjan Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Dec 2022WCP/1014/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a contempt petition seeking punishment for alleged non-compliance. The Court found respondents issued orders complying with its writ in the interim, creating a fresh cause of action for any grievance regarding those orders.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; matter open for petitioner to approach appropriate forum regarding substantive complaint.

Dr. Ranjan Mathur Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Writ Contempt No. 1014/2022

¶3

Dr. Ranjan Mathur S/o Dr. Om Prakash Mathur, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 26/2/3 Rare, Opposite Chanakya Hotel And Bhram Kumari Ashram, Sadul Gunj, Bikaner (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

Shri Vaibhav Galriya, Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Dr. Ghanshyam, Dme, Medical Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

Dr. Mohammad Salim, Principal And Controller, S.p. Medical College, Bikaner.

¶10

Dr. Manak Gujrani, Officiating Principal And Controller, S.p. Medical College, Bikaner.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)	: Mr. : Mr.	Rajeev Purohit Manish Vyas,AAG

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶14

Order

¶15

07/12/2022

¶16

The petitioner herein has preferred the present contempt petition praying that the respondents be punished as per the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 15.09.2022 passed by this Court in D.B. C.W. No.6312/2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed with the following directions:-

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[WCP-1014/2022]

¶19

“In the result of aforesaid discussion, the wordsMedical Teachers holding BDS/MDS degrees shall be read into the notification dated 30.03.2018. Consequently, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service upto the age of 65 years. The respondent authorities shall pass necessary orders to continue Medical Teachers (Dental) in service till the age of 65 years with all consequential benefits. It is however made clear that the Medical Teachers (Dental) who have already superannuated shall not be entitled to claim reinstatement in service.

¶20

The writ petition is allowed in above terms. No order as to costs.”

¶21

The Special Leave to Appeal No.19112/2022 preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the order dated 15.09.2022 has been dismissed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 25.11.2022.

¶22

Mr. Manish Vyas, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has been reinstated in service and by an order dated 23.11.2022, he has been allowed to continue in service upto the age of 65 years.

¶23

Mr. Rajeev Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner was not in position to refute the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondents. However, he submitted that the petitioner has not been continued on the post of Additional Principal cum Head of Dentistry Department in S.P. Medical College, Bikaner. Learned counsel thus submitted that the respondents are guilty of wilful and deliberate non-compliance of order dated 15.09.2022 and therefore, they may be appropriately punished by this Court.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[WCP-1014/2022]

¶27

Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of J.S. Parihar vs.

¶28

Ganpat Duggar , reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291 held that once

¶29

there is an order passed by government on the basis of directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The Contempt Court does not have the jurisdiction to issue fresh directions while hearing a contempt petition.

¶30

Indisputably, in the present case, complying with the order dated 15.09.2022 passed in D.B. C.W. No.6312/2022, the respondents passed order dated 23.11.2022 to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 65 years.

¶31

In view of aforesaid, the present contempt petition is dismissed. It will however be open for petitioner to assail correctness of order dated 23.11.2022, if he is not satisfied with the same, in an appropriate forum.

¶32

No order as to costs.

¶33

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶34

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶35

17-skm/-

Dr. Ranjan Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ranjan Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

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

Nora Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kishan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramswaroop Vs State of Rajasthan

Santosh Devi Vs Kamlesh Kumar

Roopa Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Gom Singh Vs State of Rajasthan