[2025:RJ-JP:34333] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 541/2025 Brijraj Singh Hada S/o Shri Hanuwant Singh Hada, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Gopal Colony, Mangrol Road, Baran (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Aparna Arora, Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Shri Abhijeet Bajarni, Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (H.o.f.f.) Rajasthan, Van Bhawan, Jaipur. 3. Shri Apoorva Krishna Shrivastava, Divisional Chief Conservator Of Forest, Kota (Raj. 4. Sonam Jorihar, Chief Conservator Of Forest, Kota. 5. Shri Anil Yadav, Dy. Forest Conservator Of Forest Baran. 6. Shri Dinesh Sharma, Additional Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Regional Office, Kota. 7. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 28/08/2025 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of order dated 02.09.2024. 2. Vide order dated 02.09.2024, the Court had directed the respondents to pay the petitioner arrears of the provisional pension within a period of four weeks with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. [2025:RJ-JP:34333] (2 of 2) [CCP-541/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the arrears of provisional pension alongwith interst has already been given to the petitioner. He further submits that the gratuity amount has not been paid. 4. In view of the order dated 02.09.2024, directions of the Court was only to the extent of payment of arrears of provisional pension with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., whereas there was no direction for payment of gratuity. 5. Taking into consideration the statements made by the counsel for the petitioner that the payment of arrears of provisional pension alongwith interest has already been paid, the Court is of the opinion that the respondents have already complied with the directions of the Court made vide order dated 02.09.2024, hence no contempt is made out and accordingly, this contempt petition is dismissed. 6. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy available to him under the law for seeking the payment of gratuity. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /Satyendra/35