Abhinav Swami S/O Shri Mahipal Swami, v. Dr. Rajeev Mathur the Director Mody University Lakshmangarh Sikar

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2023CCP/601/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the petitioner alleged willful disobedience regarding payment of salary. The Court held that measuring entitlement requires clarification of the impugned judgment itself rather than a contempt trial. The case was closed without adjudicating on the merits of the salary claim.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged. Contempt petition closed as the case involves an issue of interpretation of the previous order which requires a separate writ petition.

Abhinav Swami S/O Shri Mahipal Swami, Vs Dr. Rajeev… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/001123]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D. B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 601/2021

¶4

¶5

D.B. Special Appeal No. 141/2021

¶6

¶7

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5448/2020

¶8

Abhinav Swami S/o Shri Mahipal Swami, aged about 33 years, R/o 2559, Temple Shri Sita Ram Ji, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur Rajasthan- 302003

¶9

----Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

Dr. Rajeev Mathur, The Director Mody University Lakshmangarh Sikar, Rajasthan 332311, Email Id director@[email protected].

¶12

Vinod Purohit, The Registrar Mody University Lakshmangarh Sikar, Rajasthan. 332311, Email Id registrar@[email protected]

¶13

State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Add. Block-IV, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur- 302015 (Rajasthan-India).

¶14

----Respondents/Contemnor

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Kapil Bardhar Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. A.K. Sharma Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rachit Sharma Advocate and Mr. Tej Pratap Singh Advocate.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order

¶17

01/02/2023

¶18

Heard.

¶19

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of judgment dated 05.03.2021 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 141/2021.

(2 of 3)

[2023/RJJP/001123]

[CCP-601/2021]

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was working as Lawn Tennis Coach. Learned counsel would submit that the appeal was disposed with a clarification that the respondents shall pay salary to the petitioner for the period in question as ordered by the learned Single Judge as have been paid to similarly situated employees. He would further submit that the respondents themselves have classified the employees in two categories as academic staff and non-academic staff. They had paid salary to the non-academic staff. Therefore, in the spirit of the order of the Court, the petitioner was also entitled to payment of salary for the intervening period as all non-academic staff is in the category of similarly situated employees.

¶24

Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the petitioner was a Coach. It is not the case that any other Coach was given benefit of salary and the petitioner was singled out for hostile discrimination. The respondents have formed an opinion that as no other Coach has been paid salary, it is not a case where the petitioner should be paid salary and, therefore, his claim has not been accepted.

¶25

This Court, while disposing off D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 141/2021 vide judgment dated 05.03.2021 clarified that the petitioner would be entitled to payment of salary for the period in question as has been paid to similarly situated employees. The word, “similarly situated employees” has not been clarified. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that all non-academic staff should be treated as similarly situated employees, is a matter for consideration in a separately constituted writ petition and not in the contempt petition. The

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJP/001123]

[CCP-601/2021]

respondents’ opinion that no other Coach has been paid salary is based on understanding of the order of the Court and according to them, the other employees, who have been paid salary, are not similarly situated only on the ground that they constituted category of non-academic staff. Irrespective of the merits of the claim of the petitioner, in our opinion, present case cannot be said to be a case of willful disobedience of the order of the Court. Leaving it open for the petitioner to either seek clarification of judgment dated 05.03.2021 on the aspect of similarly situated employees or take recourse to any other remedy available under the law, this contempt petition is closed.

¶30

Rule is discharged.

¶31

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶32

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

¶33

MANOJ NARWANI /47

Abhinav Swami S/O Shri Mahipal Swami, v. Dr. Rajeev Mathur the Director Mody University Lakshmangarh Sikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinav Swami S/O Shri Mahipal Swami, v. Dr. Rajeev Mathur the Director Mody University Lakshmangarh Sikar

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

Shri Veerendrapal Dwivedi S/O Shri Shriram Dwivedi Vs Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal

Ramsnehi Lal Chaturvedi S/O Late Sh. Mathura Prasad Chaturvedi, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Satyapal Singh S/O Late Sh. Het Singh, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vijaypal S/O Sh. Bhagirath Vs Sajna Devi W/O Sh. Vijaypal, D/O Shri Girdhari Lal

State of Rajasthan Vs Suman Bajiya D/O Padma Ram Bajiya W/O Heera Lal Manda

Raghuveer Singh S/O Chhotu Singh Vs Rekha Kanwar W/O Raghuveer Singh D/O Bhanwar Singh