[2025:RJ-JP:18522-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 390/2024 In D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.541/2023 Jagdish Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Plot No. 6, Sudha Vihar, Near Police Station Shahpura, Near Shyam Mandir, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Krishna Kunal, Principal Secretary School Education, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Shri Ravi Jain, Secretary, Panchayat Raj. Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Shri Ashish Modi, Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 4. Shri Sita Ram Jat, Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 5. Shri Jai Singh Meena, Head Master Government Secondary School Dholi Kothi, Virat Nagar District Jaipur Rajasthan. 6. Dr. Dev Raj, Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 7. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, School Education, Secretariat, Jaipur. --Contemnors/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Swami, Advocate along with Mr. Rakesh Swami, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG assisted by Mr. Avinash Chaudhary & Mr. Hardik Singh, Advocates Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG assisted by Mr. Aman Bohra, Advocate (for respondent No.6) [2025:RJ-JP:18522-DB] (2 of 2) [CCP-390/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 02/05/2025 The order complained of was passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.541/2023 on 21st December 2023 in the following terms: “In view of the above, we are unable to uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in the manner and to the extent that the respondents shall count the entire period during which the appellant- petitioner remained out of service for the purposes of pension. The pension case of the appellant-petitioner shall be revised within a period three months. After revision of the pension case, the entire arrears of pension to which appellant petitioner is found entitled, shall be paid to him within a further period of two months. The respondents shall continue to pay pension on the basis of revised pension, as directed by this court.” 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that this Court’s order was not complied and the amount due and payable including one annual increment was not given to him. 3. In the first place, as we gather from aforequoted portion of the order dated 21st December 2023 that the only direction issued by this Court was to count the period of absence from duty for the purpose of pension. 4. Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba and Mr. Sandeep Taneja, the learned Additional Advocate General state that revised pension payment order has been issued on 2nd April 2025. 5. In view thereof, we are not inclined to proceed further in this Contempt Petition and it is accordingly closed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J AMIT/28