[2025:RJ-JP:28920-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 713/2025 In D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.154/2020 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4772/2019 1. Ravindra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Laxmi Chand Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village And Post Jhalatala, Tehsil Laxamangarh, Distt. Alwar (Raj.) 2. Dimpal Patel D/o Mohan Lal Patel W/o Hemant K. Kalal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Kalawara, Post Peeth, Tehsil Simalvara, Dungarpur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.) 2. Shri Ram Niwas Mehta, Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.) 3. Shri Debasish Prusty, The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. Shri Brijesh Kishore Sharma, The Director, Directorate Of Treasuries And Accounts (Dta)-Government Of Rajasthan, Vita Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Shri Mahaveer Prasad, The Board Of Revenue Through Its Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 30/07/2025 1. Petitioners are alleging contempt of order dated 19th July 2024. The operative part of this order reads as under: [2025:RJ-JP:28920-DB] (2 of 2) [CCP-713/2025] “Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that on 04.07.2024, a Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur has passed an interim order, we are inclined to pass similar order to the effect that the pendency of these appeals shall not come in the way of the appellants’ entitlement to seek confirmation upon successful completion of the probation period and all other service benefits, to which they are entitled.” 2. It is petitioners’ case that respondents have not confirmed petitioners in their respective posts or extended any consequential service benefits and hence, respondents are in contempt of order dated 19th July 2024. 3. We are afraid, we cannot agree with petitioners because the order only says that “…….. pendency of these appeals shall not come in the way of the appellants’ entitlement to seek confirmation upon successful completion of the probation period and all other service benefits, to which they are entitled”. It only enables petitioners to seek confirmation and there is no direction to respondents to confirm. Therefore, respondents cannot be stated to be in willful disobedience of order passed by this Court. 4. Nevertheless, we direct respondents to consider the representation made by petitioners seeking confirmation and dispose the same in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. 5. Petition disposed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ RAJAT/NEERU/14