Dismissed

Ravi Prakash Yadav v. Shri G K Agarwal

Rajasthan HC24 Nov 2023CMAP/562/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an application to revive a contempt petition concerning a refusal to recommend a case for compassionate appointment. The Court held that the original order merely directed consideration, not grant, so the respondent acted within bounds.

What did the court decide?

Application for revival of contempt petition No. 560/2008 dismissed as devoid of merit.

Ravi Prakash Yadav Vs Shri G K Agarwal — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 562/2016

¶3

Ravi Prakash Yadav S/o Late Shri Pokhar Mal Yadav, R/o 3, Saraswati Nagar, Sushilpura, Sodala, Jaipur Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri R.p. Arya, Chief General Manager, Tele Communication, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rajasthan Telecom Circle, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur Raj.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vishvesh Gupta, Adv. with
	Mr. Sunil Kumar Chechi, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Adv.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶10

Order

¶11

24/11/2023

¶12

Matter comes up on an application No. 562/2016 for revival of the contempt petition No. 560/2008.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 14.08.2008 allowed the writ petition. Against the said order, BSNL filed DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1938/2008, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.12.2008. Then SLP No. 16463/2009 was filed by BSNL before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2009. He further submits that the respondent has wrongly rejected the case of the petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that this Court vide order dated 14.08.2008 only directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The respondent

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CMAP-562/2016]

¶17

considered the case of the petitioner and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case did not recommend petitioner’s case for giving appointment on compassionate ground under CGA Scheme vide order dated 22.10.2009.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 14.8.2008.

¶19

Admittedly, this Court vide order dated 14.08.2008 only directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Since, no direction was given to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner, the respondent considered his case and did not find any ground to recommend his case to give appointment on compassionate ground under CGA Scheme. Hence, the application for revival of the contempt petition, being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

¶20

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶21

Gourav/06

Ravi Prakash Yadav v. Shri G K Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Prakash Yadav v. Shri G K Agarwal

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

Chhitarmal Saini Vs Shri Naveen Mahajan and Ors.

Mahesh Chand Jain Son of Shri Ganesh Lal Jain Vs Shri Vaibhav Galariya

Gangaram Gurjar S/O Shri Kailash Chand Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Subodh Bihari Gupta Vs Ghanshyam Bihari Gupta and Ors.

Kalyan Mal Vs Hanuman and Ors.

Rajesh Sharma S/O Late Deendayal Vs Smt. Geeta Devi W/O Late Shri Deendayal Sharma