[2025:RJ-JP:39960] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 395/2024 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.323/2024 Sunita Kumari W/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, R/o Village Kalayon Ka Bas, Swami Sehi, Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Subhra Singh, Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Secretariat, Jaipur 302005 (Raj.) 2. Shri Ravi Prakash Mathur, Director (Public Health) Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Dr. Rajkumar Dangi, Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 4. Shri Tejpal, Block Chief Medical Officer, Block Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 5. Dr. Priya Kaler, Medical Officer Incharge, Phc Padampura, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And Health Services Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya 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 for non-compliance of the order dated 19.01.2024 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.323/2024. [2025:RJ-JP:39960] (2 of 2) [CCP-395/2024] 2. Vide order dated 19.01.2024, the Court had disposed of the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the respondents-authorities as regards his grievances of non- payment of salary for the period from the month of September, 2022. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the amount of due salary has been paid to the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has also given before this Court the copy of GA55 A as regards the payment of due salary to the petitioner. 5. The documents placed before this Court by counsel for the respondents are taken on record. 6. In view of the submissions made by counsel for the respondents, the present contempt petition is disposed of. 7. However, it is made clear that counsel for the petitioner may verify the aforesaid facts from the petitioner and in case the statements made by counsel for the respondents is found to be incorrect, he may motive an application for revival of the contempt petition. 8. Notices stand discharged. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /269