[2025:RJ-JP:37365-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 110/2025 In D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.911/2019 In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10432/2009 Harshiv Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Harinayan Sharma, Aged About 64 Years, R/o A-98, Gol Market, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Presently Residing At F-25, Parshvanath Narain City, Near Kesar Chauraha ISKCON Road, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner/Applicant Versus 1. Smt. Roli Singh, Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur-302006. 2. Shri Vaibhav Galriya, Secretary, Department Of Higher And Technical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur-302006. 3. Shri Pradeep Kumar Borad, Commissioner, Department Of College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Dr. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur- 302017. 4. Dr. Asha Bagotia, Principal, Rajasthan School Of Arts, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan), Presently Dr. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur -202017. 5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan, Department Of Personnel (A- Group-II), Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents-Contemnors/Non-Applicants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sarthak Rastogi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 15/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has been issued on 08.04.2025 demanding a recovery of [2025:RJ-JP:37365-DB] (2 of 2) [CMAP-110/2025] Rs.5,34,625/- from the petitioner on the ground of regularization having been effected from later date, which could not have been done. 2. In view of the observations made by the High Court in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner namely D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10432/2009, wherein the Proviso to Rules 6 and 33 of the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 have been struck down, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that issuing of the recovery order amounts to committing a deliberate and willful contempt of the Court orders passed earlier. 3. We are afraid that the order passed by the respondent on 08.04.2025 would not be a subject matter to be examined in contempt proceedings, as it would amount to the method and manner in which this Court’s order has been interpreted by the respondents which can be examined only in separate proceedings. 4. The application for revival of contempt petition is found to be misconceived, the same is accordingly rejected. However, it is left free to the petitioner to take up all his arguments while assailing the order dated 08.04.2025. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV/AVINASH/37