[2025:RJ-JP:46612-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1001/2025 In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14029/2024 Manish Sharma S/o Late Shri Mangal Dutt Sharma, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Flat No. 402, Krishna Kripa Apartment No. 3, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)-302016 Presently Working As Deputy Director (Senior Time Scale), Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ms. Vandana Gurnani, Secretary Ministry Of Labour And Employement, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2. Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya, Chairman Employees State Insurance Corporation, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001. 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Marg, New Delhi-110002. 4. Shri Ratnesh Kumar Gautam, Insurance Commissioner (P & A), Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Marg, New Delhi-110002 5. Shri Manoj Kumar Shaw, Regional Director, ESIC, Regional Office, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur-302005. 6. Union Of India, Through Secretary Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Adv. Petitioner Manish Sharma is present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG with Ms. Niti Jain & Ms. Anima Chaturvedi for UOI through VC Mr. Ram Singh Bhati for ESIC [2025:RJ-JP:46612-DB] (2 of 3) [CCP-1001/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 19/11/2025 1. It has been argued that petitioner was compelled to initiate the present contempt proceedings against the respondents for the reasons that candidature of petitioner has not been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short “DPC”) on 11.09.2024 and petitioner has been denied promotion on the post of Joint Director, ESIC (Employees State Insurance Corporation) against the vacancies of the year 2024, apparently due to the penalty order dated 17.01.2024, whereas such penalty order had already been quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in Original Application No. 142/2024, vide order dated 31.07.2024 as much as the order of quashing the penalty order has been affirmed by the High Court with slight modification, vide order dated 30.08.2024 passed in D.B. Writ Petition No.14029/2024. 2. Learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the error is not deliberate and willful, but might have been occurred due to miscommunication of the order of quashing the penalty order, to DPC. However, learned ASG does not dispute that the penalty order dated 17.01.2024 has already been quashed and does not come in way to consider the candidature of petitioner for promotion on the post of Joint Director against the vacancies of 2024, if available. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, in view of the statement made by learned ASG and having instructions of the petitioner, who is [2025:RJ-JP:46612-DB] (3 of 3) [CCP-1001/2025] present in person submits that if respondents consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion, against the vacancies of the year 2024, without being influenced by the penalty order dated 17.01.2024, which has undisputedly been quashed, he will not press this contempt petition. 4. In view of the above and considering the respective contentions of learned counsel for both the parties, the issue of deliberate/willful disobedience on the part of the respondents becomes redundant, however, it is needless to observe that the candidature of petitioner for promotion on the post of Joint Director in ESIC can be considered afresh by the respondents, against the vacancies of the year 2024, obviously subject to availability of the vacancies. 5. Learned ASG undertakes to do the needful exercise within a period of three months. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant Civil Contempt Petition stands disposed of. In case of accrual of fresh/new cause of action, petitioner would be at liberty to take legal recourse as available to him under the law. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J Mohita /5