[2025:RJ-JP:24306-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 311/2024 Raju Lal Son Of Shri Arjun Lal, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Ward No 5, Fatwari Mohalla, Neem Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Mr. Sudhansh Pant Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.. 2. Shri A. Mukhopadhayay Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jiapur. 3. Shri Utkal Ranjan Sahoo, Director General Of Police. Rajasthan. 4. Shri Umesh Chandra Datta, Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur. 5. Shri Bhuvan Bhushan Yadav, Superintendent Of Police , Sikar. 6. Shri Vikaram Singh, S.h.o. Police Station Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar. 7. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amin Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 02/07/2025 1. Application (I.A. No.1/2024) seeking substitution of the names of respondent Nos.2 and 4 being misconceived, is rejected. [2025:RJ-JP:24306-DB] (2 of 4) [CCP-311/2024] 2. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order of the Court dated 20.04.2015. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though in purported compliance of the order passed by this Court he was allowed to join services but, later on due to medical condition the petitioner could not perform his duties and when after recovery he sought to join back, he was not allowed to join. It is submitted that this amounts to contempt of the order of the Court. He would further submit that this Court had also directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for regularisation, but that was also not done. Lastly, it was submitted that in addition to redressal of individual grievance of the petitioner, the order of the Court directed the respondents to create large number of posts which has not been done, therefore, the respondents have committed contempt and are liable to be punished. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that after the order was passed by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated. Though he worked for sometime, he again remained unauthorisedly absent and his joining was not accepted as it was not permissible under the Rules. Therefore, this does not amount to contempt of the order passed by this Court. He would further submit that unless there is an order in his favour that he is entitled to join back into service, petitioner cannot claim consideration of his case for regularisation. 5. As far as compliance of the other part of the order regarding creation of posts is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents is unable to make any definite statement. [2025:RJ-JP:24306-DB] (3 of 4) [CCP-311/2024] 6. We have gone through the order passed by this Court earlier on 20.04.2015. While deciding the appeal of the State, this Court directed respondents to consider to create substantive posts of Cooks/Langaris, and to pay all the Cooks/Langaris working in the Police Department, minimum of the pay scale, and to frame a scheme for their regularisation, in accordance with the directions issued in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3), 2006 4 SCC 1. 7. As far as the case of the petitioner-Raju Lal is concerned, we find that on his own showing, in compliance of the order of the Court, he was reinstated in service. It appears that later on, after having worked for sometime, he remained absent which according to respondents is unauthorised. When again sought to join back after long absence, was not allowed to join. This cannot be said to be contemptuous in nature. Once the petitioner was reinstated into service and he, thereafter for any reason, remained absent and then was not allowed to join, it would not amount to violation of the order which was passed by this Court earlier on 20.04.2015. Though the petitioner was not allowed to join, the petitioner did not seek any relief from the Court in a duly constituted petition that the respondents should be directed to allow him to join back into service. Unless there is a direction to the respondents for allowing joining of the petitioner, his case for regularisation cannot be considered. Therefore, as far as the petitioner’s case is concerned, we do not find that present is a case where any contempt is made out. 8. We however, find that this Court had passed order to consider for creation of posts. We would have proceeded in the [2025:RJ-JP:24306-DB] (4 of 4) [CCP-311/2024] matter against the respondents but for the fact that the contempt petition itself has been filed in the year 2024, whereas the order was passed by this Court way back in the year 2015. Provision contained under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would come in the way for initiating contempt proceedings even if it is accepted that creation of posts and regularisation of large number of persons was not undertaken. This is the additional reason why the contempt petition filed by the petitioner also cannot be accepted. 9. The contempt petition is accordingly, dismissed. Rule stands discharged. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N. Gandhi/DIKSHA/99