In this civil contempt petition, the petitioner alleged that despite an interim order dated 04.03.2020, he was denied duty and remuneration. The court found no evidence to establish contempt based on the facts presented.
The civil contempt petition is dismissed. The petitioner is left to avail other legal remedies if occasion arises.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 501/2020
Alim S/o Shri Abdul Gani, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Sharnawada Road, Behind Mali Ki Badi, Akash Nagar, Chhabara, District Baran (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad,Adv. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Ms. Sheetal Mirdha,AAG |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
16/01/2023
This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 04.03.2020 passed by this Court.
(2 of 3) [CCP-501/2020]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 01.06.2017, the petitioner was engaged on contract basis as a driver in the office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Circle Chhabra and since then, he was performing his duties. From January, 2020, the petitioner was neither allowed to mark his signature in the log book. Even after passing of the interim order dated 04.03.2020, the petitioner has not been allowed to join the duties nor he has been made payment of remuneration/wages on monthly basis. He further submits that even after retirement of regular driver namely, Abdul Azeez on 30.06.2021, the respondents have engaged one Hansraj and work is not being taken from the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned AAG appearing for the respondents has opposed the same and submits that the earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court wherein he filed a certificate (annexure-1) to show that he was engaged on contract basis, whereas annexure-1 categorically established that the petitioner was a driver in the department on a private vehicle. She further submits that as and when, there was a requirement for driving the private vehicle, the petitioner was called and paid the remuneration as per BSR rate.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the record.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly in view of the fact that as per the petitioner’s averment, since January 20th , the petitioner was neither allowed to mark his signature in the log book whereas the ex-parte interim order was passed on 04.03.2020
Thus, no contempt, as alleged, is made out.
(3 of 3) [CCP-501/2020]
The civil contempt petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy, as available to him, if, occasion so arises.
Notices stand discharged.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Seema/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the failure to allow the petitioner to mark his signature in the log book and join duties from January 2020, after an interim order, constitutes contempt.
Whether there is evidence to make out a case for civil contempt of this Court's order dated 04.03.2020.
Alim
State Of Rajasthan
Narendra Singh Dhadha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
