[2025:RJ-JP:38676] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 419/2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18599/2024 Satish Prakash Gupta S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Gupta, Aged About 84 Years, Resident Of House No. A-461, Talwandi, Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Mr. Shri Vikas Sitaram Bhale, Principal Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005. 2. Mr. Anand Sejra, Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005. 3. Mr. Akhil Arora, Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005. 4. Mr. Devraj, Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005. 5. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Raj Yogi For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pooja Sharma for Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG Mr. Aaditya Godara for Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 19/09/2025 1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 05.02.2025 [2025:RJ-JP:38676] (2 of 3) [CCP-419/2025] passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18599/2024. 2. Heard. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the respective parties. 3. Vide order dated 05.02.2025, the Court in paras No.6 & 7 made observation and direction as under:- “6. The directions issued in the case of Vijay Singh (supra), were made applicable in rem with the further direction to the State to grant the benefit of annual grade increment to all the similarly situated persons and such persons should not be compelled to approach this Court again and again for getting orders in their favour. It appears that the respondents have least regard to the orders passed by this Court and such act on behalf of the State- authorities and its officials definitely tantamount to contempt of the Court. 7. Before passing the appropriate orders in future at appropriate stage, the instant petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra), and Ramesh Chandra Sharma (supra), expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the respondents have decided the representation of the petitioner by reasoned and speaking order on 15.09.2025 after taking into consideration the judgment passed in the case as referred in the order and have rejected and disposed the representation of the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:38676] (3 of 3) [CCP-419/2025] 5. A copy reply/compliance alongwith order dated 15.09.2025 has been placed before this Court by counsel appearing for the respondents, is also taken on record. 6. In view of the fact that the direction was to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of order passed in case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma & Vijay Singh and the respondents have decided the representation after referring the said orders, this Court is of opinion that the respondents have complied with the order of this Court. 7. Accordingly, this contempt petition is disposed of. 8. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner has any grievance as regards the order dated 15.09.2025, he can avail appropriate remedy available to him under law so as to challenge the order. 9. Notices stand discharged. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /133