Dr. Omprakash S/O Shri Narayan Singh Vs Akhil Arora, Additional Chief Secretary

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:19943-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 153/2025

¶4

In

¶5

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11977/2022

¶6

Dr. Omprakash S/o Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Mukam-Jaswantpura, Tehsil- Srimadhopur, District - Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Akhil Arora, Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules Division), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶10

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules Division), Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶11

Dr. Krishna Kant Pathak, Principal Secreary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶12

Bhawani Singh Detha, Principal Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶13

Sawan Kumar Chayal, Dy. Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶14

Dr. Anand Kumar Sharma, Director, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Goverment Of Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma on behalf of
	Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma,AAG

¶17

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

¶18

Order

¶19

12/05/2025

¶20

Heard.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the effect and operation of the order passed by this Court on 18.08.2022 had remained stayed because of the intervention by

¶22

[2025:RJ-JP:19943-DB]

¶23

[CCP-153/2025]

¶24

(2 of 3)

¶25

the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would submit that even after the SLP was dismissed on 30.01.2024, the petitioner was not reinstated on the ground of pendency of the review petition. He would submit that during the pendency of the review petition, the petitioner attained the extended age of superannuation i.e. 62 years on 30.09.2024.

¶26

It is submitted that the action of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioner despite order of the Court, is contemptuous.

¶27

On petitioner’s own showing the order passed by this Court on 18.08.2022 had been assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it was stayed. Though SLP was dismissed on 30.01.2024, review was again filed which also remain pending. That appears to be the reason why the petitioner was not reinstated as the decision in the review petition was awaited.

¶28

Be that as it may, in these circumstances, we are not inclined to initiate any contempt proceeding. 5. However, in the changed circumstances, the respondents are required to treat the case of the petitioner as one who has now completed 62 years of age and cannot be effectively reinstated in service. Nevertheless, the benefit of similar orders passed in large number of cases including the order referred to in our order dated 18.08.2022, similar relief is to be granted to the petitioner in the manner that the authorities shall be obliged to pass necessary orders treating the petitioner in service till attaining the age of 62 years and will also grant all the consequential benefits of continuity in service which includes pay, parks and salary. It also requires consequential action of refixation of pension and other

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[2025:RJ-JP:19943-DB]

¶31

[CCP-153/2025]

¶32

retiral benefits which are dependent upon the length of service and last pay certificate.

¶33

This contempt petition, at this stage, is disposed of. Rule stands discharged.

¶34

This order has been passed in the presence of learned State Counsel. The State Counsel shall communicate a copy of this order to the concerned authorities for due and proper compliance in letter and spirit.

¶35

This order shall be read along with the order dated 18.08.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11977/2022 for the purposes of compliance.

¶36

If the order is not complied with within a reasonable period of three months, the petitioner would be at liberty to file fresh contempt petition.

¶37

(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J

¶38

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ

¶39

RAJAT/ANAND TANWAR/52

Dr. Omprakash S/O Shri Narayan Singh v. Akhil Arora, Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Omprakash S/O Shri Narayan Singh v. Akhil Arora, Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Ghanshyam Joshi S/O Shrivirdhi Chand Sharma Vs Akhil Arora, Additionalchief Secretary

The State of Rajasthan Vs Suman Devi D/O Shri Ishwar Singh W/O Sunil Kumar

Mamta Meena W/O Dinesh Kumar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Jagdish Singh Rajpurohit S/O Shri Bhur Singh Vs Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel

Dr Satish Chandra Parashar S/O Lt. Shri Mool Chandra Parashar Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Hero Motocorp Limited Vs Union of India