This order dismisses a contempt petition filed by a contractual employee alleging that the Respondents failed to consider his representation sympathetically after the High Court permitted his placement in another store following the dismissal of his writ petition. The court found no merit in the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Contempt No. 342/2021
Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/o Sh Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 43 Years, R/o A, 289, Sanjay Colony Nr Church, Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Order
15/09/2022
This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner complaining that the respondent No.2 has not sympathetically considered the representation filed by the petitioner as directed by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2020 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6768/2020.
It is noticed that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 09.04.2019 by way of filing a writ petition No.6768/2020. Vide order dated 09.04.2020, the petitioner, who was a contractual employee, was removed from service by the respondent No.3, General Manager, Pratapgarh Sahkari Upbhogta Thok Bhandar Ltd., Pratapgarh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Bhandar’).
This Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, has dismissed the writ petition in limine while observing that there is no illegality in passing of the order dated 09.04.2019, as the
(2 of 2) [WCP-342/2021]
Bhandar has decided to discontinue the center run by it, where the petitioner was working on contract basis. While dismissing the said writ petition, a prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner before this Court that the representation filed by the petitioner to accommodate him in some other store or under any other scheme may kindly be directed to be considered by the Bhandar.
Taking into consideration the prayer made by the petitioner, this Court has observed that if the petitioner submits representation, the General Manager of the Bhandar shall consider the same sympathetically without being influenced by the fact that the petitioner’s writ petition has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 13.08.2020, a legal notice dated 31.10.2020 was served upon the respondents with a prayer to consider the representation of the petitioner sympathetically as directed by this Court.
I have gone through the legal notice sent on behalf of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has made a vague submission that several posts are lying vacant in the Bhandar, however, no description regarding the posts has been mentioned. Otherwise also, this Court while passing the order dated 13.08.2020, has not given any direction to decide the representation of the petitioner within time fixed.
In view of above, I do not find any merit in this contempt petition. The same is hereby dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
39-Babulal/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the General Manager failed to consider the petitioner's representation sympathetically as directed by the High Court in its previous order.
Whether the difficulty in determining the time limits fixed for the High Court's order invalidates the contempt petition on its merits.
Pradeep Kumar Sharma
The State Of Raj, Through Collector Pratapgarh
Jaydev Deval
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
