Dismissed¶21

Hari Ram Tanwar v. Shri Sudhanshu

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2025CCP/1247/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CCP-1247/2017 Rajasthan HC Jaipur (Justice Uma Shanker Vyas, 06-11-2025): contempt petition by Hari Ram Tanwar v Sudhanshu (Suresh Gyan Vihar University) alleging disobedience of judicial order dt 17-05-2017 (perform duties without interference; regular salary, Assistant Professor Electronics & Communication Engineering) — dismissed; compliance found proceeding regularly; original judicial order cannot be extended; salary-increment/other-benefits grievance not accommodated; subsequent conflicting orders give fresh grounds, petitioner free to pursue lawful remedies; notices to respondents concluded.

What did the court decide?

Compliance of the judicial order dated 17-05-2017 was found to be proceeding regularly, with the petitioner reinstated in service and regular salary being paid. ¶20

Hari Ram Tanwar Vs Shri Sudhanshu — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the judicial order dated 17-05-2017 — directing that the petitioner be allowed without interference to perform his duties as prior to 10/12/2016 and be paid regular salary for the post on which he was working as Assistant Professor in Electronics & Communication Engineering — was being complied with. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Compliance of the judicial order dated 17-05-2017 was found to be proceeding regularly, with the petitioner reinstated in service and regular salary being paid.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The original judicial order issued by the court in the contempt matter cannot be extended beyond its terms; it was accordingly not enlarged to accommodate the petitioner's grievance regarding salary increments and other benefits.

¶20

Key takeaways

If, subsequently in the course of proceedings, any other conflicting order touching the petitioner's service is issued, it gives birth to fresh grounds of complaint; for such grounds the petitioner is free to resort to any lawful process available.ratio¶20
Granting such independence to the petitioner, this contempt petition is dismissed and the notices issued to the respondents are concluded.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), Justice Uma Shanker Vyas, 06/11/2025 — S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1247/2017 (CCP-1247/2017) by Hari Ram Tanwar against Shri Sudhanshu, Chief Mentor (Former Director), Suresh Gyan Vihar University, Jaipur, alleging disobedience of the judicial order dated 17-05-2017 (linked in the operative Hindi text to case entry 273@2017). That order had directed that the petitioner be allowed, without interference, to perform his duties as prior to 10/12/2016 and be paid regular salary as Assistant Professor in Electronics & Communication Engineering. Finding that compliance of the 17-05-2017 order was proceeding regularly (petitioner reinstated; regular salary being paid), the court held that the original judicial order in a contempt case cannot be extended beyond its terms, and hence did not enlarge it to cover the petitioner's grievance that salary increments and other benefits granted to other employees had not been accorded to him. It further held that any subsequent conflicting order touching his service would give rise to fresh grounds of complaint, for which he remains free to pursue any lawful process available. Granting that independence, the contempt petition was dismissed and the notices issued to the respondents were concluded.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:44444]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1247/2017

¶4

Hari Ram Tanwar S/o Sh. Net Ram, R/o D/145 Nirman Nagar Kings Road Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Sudhanshu, Chief Mentor, (Former Director), The Suresh Gyan Vihar University, Mahal Jagatpura, Jaipur

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Dave Kishan Purohit, Adv. & Ms. Mamta Kumari, Adv. for Mr. Prem Krishan Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Madhav Mitra Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Veerendra Singh, Adv.
	Mr. Sharukh Khan, Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

06/11/2025

¶13

,l-ch- flfoy fjV fiVh'ku uacj 273@2017 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 17-05-2017 dh dfFkr vogsyuk ds laca/k esa ;g voekuuk ;kfpdk izLrqr dh x;h gSA vkns'k dk lqlaxr Hkkx fuEukuqlkj gS%&

¶14

"Taking into consideration the reply filed by respondent University, it is directed that the petitioner shall be allowed without interfernce to perform his duties as he was performing prior to 10/12/2016 and shall also be paid regular salary for the post on which he was working as Assistant Professor in the subject of Electronics & Communication Engineering."

¶15

fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph dk fuosnu gS fd ;|fi ;kph dks lsok esa ekudj fu;fer osru fn;k tk jgk gS] ysfdu nwljs deZpkfj;ksa ds eqdkcys osru o`f) dk ykHk o vU; ykHk ugha fn;s tk jgs gSaA

¶16

fo}ku vf/koDrk foi{kh dk fuosnu gS fd vkns'k dh ikyuk esa ;kph dks lsok esa ekurs gq, fu;fer osru dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gS] ftldk

¶17

(2 of 2) [CCP-1247/2017]

¶18

[2025:RJ-JP:44444]

¶19

fooj.k vkj&1 esa mYysf[kr gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd ;fn lsok esa jgus ds nkSjku fdlh vU; vkns'k ls ;kph Lo;a dks O;fFkr le>rk gS rks uohu okn dkj.k gS vkSj mlds fy, i`Fkd ls mipkj izkIr djus gsrq Lora= gSA

¶20

voekuuk ekeys esa U;k;ky; }kjk tks ewy U;kf;d vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] mldk foLrkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 17-05-2017 dh ikyuk fu;fer :i ls gks jgh gSA i'pkr~orhZ izØe ij lsok esa vU; dksbZ izfrdwy vkns'k ikfjr gq, gSa rks os okn dkj.k dks tUe nsrs gSa vkSj mlds fy, ;kph ;fn dksbZ fof/kd mipkj miyC/k gS] rks izkIr djus gsrq Lora= gSA

¶21

vr% mijksDr Lora=rk iznku djrs gq, ;g voekuuk ;kfpdk fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA foi{khx.k dks tkjh'kqnk uksfVl lekIr fd;s tkrs gSaA

¶22

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶23

Murari Lal Sharma /28

Hari Ram Tanwar v. Shri Sudhanshu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ram Tanwar v. Shri Sudhanshu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Geeta Malpani W/O Shri Purushottam Malpani Vs Mr. Ravi Jain

Manish Sain S/O Santosh Kumar Sain Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Singh Vs Smt. Girraji Widow of Late Shri Kamal Singh

Gautam Jopat, Son of Late Shri Ashok Narain Jopat, Vs Dr Mahendra Khadgawat

Smt Chain Kanwar Vs Damodar Lal

Dr K. C. Gupta (Dr. Kailash Chandra Gupta S/O Late Shri Onkar Maiji Vs State of Rajasthan