The contempts were dismissed as the Court found that the petitioners' contracts with the State Information Commission had expired on 30.12.2016, and this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court during the interim hearing.
Contempt petition dismissed; notices stood discharged.
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. 782/2017
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.985/2017
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Akhil Simlote, Adv. Mr. Ashvini Raj Tanwar, Adv. Mr. Dikshant Jain, Adv. Mr. Akshay Sharma, Adv. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Vijay Choudhary, Adv. for respondent No.2. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
| ORDER RESERVED ON |
:: | 13.01.2023 |
|---|---|---|
| ORDER PRONOUNCED ON |
:: | 17 .01.2023 |
(2 of 3) [CCP-782/2017]
The Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act for disobedience of the interim order dated 24.01.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.985/2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were initially engaged through placement agency in the office of the Rajasthan State Information Commission. After that, the petitioners were directly engaged on contract basis by the Rajasthan State Information Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that service contract of the petitioners were extended upto 30.12.2016. After that, petitioners were working but the respondents not allowed them to mark their attendance though the respondents were taking the services of the petitioners. Petitioners filed a S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.985/2017 in which notices were issued to the respondents and interim order passed in favour of the petitioners and respondents were restrained from taking any vindictive action against the petitioners. After this interim order, petitioners had filed a representation before the respondents enclosing therewith a copy of the order dated 24.01.2017 but respondents are not paying salary to the petitioners from January 2017 till today. They have allowed the petitioners to work but did not allow them to mark their attendance. Respondents have intentionally flouted the order passed by this Court. So, respondents be punished suitably.
Learned counsel for the respondent(s) has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that contract of the petitioners were continued upto 30.12.2016. After that, no extension was given to them and their terms expired on 30.12.2016. Presently, they are not working with
(3 of 3) [CCP-782/2017]
the State Information Commission. So, respondents have not committed any contempt. So, contempt petition be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent(s) has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr. Harish Kumar Vs. Dr. S.C. Gairola & Ors. reported in 2018 SCC online Utt. 1030 .
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent(s).
This Court passed the order dated 24.01.2017 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.985/2017 filed by the petitioners operative part of the order dated 24.01.2017 is reproduced as under:-
“In the meanwhile, the respondents are
restrained from taking any vindictive action against the petitioners because of the notices issued by this Court.”
As per the contention of the respondents, terms of the petitioners were expired on 30.12.2016 and they have not further extended the petitioners’ contract. The said fact had not been brought to the notice of this Court while passing the ex-parte interim order dated 24.01.2017. So, in my considered opinion, respondents have not flouted the order passed by this Court. So, contempt petition filed by the petitioners being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly.
Notices stand discharged.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /88
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents committed contempt by allowing petitioners to work without marking attendance after the contractual terms expired.
Whether the respondents flouted the interim order prohibiting vindictive action passed in 2017.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Harish Kumar Vs. Dr. S.C. Gairola & Ors.Referred¶25
2018 SCC online Utt. 1030 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shailendra Singh
Jeetu Sakhnani
Lokendra Singh
Shri P.k. Goyal
The State Of Rajasthan
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
