Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 41279 (RAJ)

RAJENDRA KUMAWAT S/O SHRI RAMFOOL KUMAWAT v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CCP/31/2023 · 2025-09-26

Ganesh Ram Meena

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:39951] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 31/2023 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11330/2020 Rajendra Kumawat S/o Shri Ramfool Kumawat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 20, Kanji Nagar, Near Balti Factory, Agra Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Shri Suresh Nawal, Director(Non-Gazetted) Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur. 3. Dr. Vijay Singh Fojdar, Chief Medical And Health Officer-I, District Health Building, Sethi Colony, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Ms. Tanvisha Pant for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 26/09/2025 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 29.04.2022 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11330/2020. 2. Vide order dated 29.04.2022, the Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of the suspension of the petitioner within a period of 60 days by [2025:RJ-JP:39951] (2 of 2) [CCP-31/2023] passing a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that consideration as regards the revocation of the suspension of the petitioner was made and his representation was rejected vide order dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure-R-1) placed alongwith the reply filed by the respondents. She further submits that now by another order dated 03.04.2025, the suspension of the petitioner has been revoked after considering the subsequent facts. 4. In view of the submissions made by counsel for the respondents, this Court is opinion that the respondents have made substantial compliance of the Court’s order. 5. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is disposed of. 6. Notices stand discharged. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /229