[2025:RJ-JP:49477] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 636/2024 1. Vinod Kumar Son Of Shri M.p. Verma, Resident Of Lakhaji Ki Dhani, Opposite Hotel Olympia, Tonk Road, Jaipur At Present Resident Of B-77, Shiv Vihar Vistar, Manyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Ajay Tiwari Son Of Shri Ram Niwas Tiwari, Vaidya, Resident Of C-198, Manu Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Gajanand Sharma Son Of Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, Resident Of Village And Post Khejroli, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.). 4. Bhanwarlal Kumawat, Son Of Shri R.s. Kumawat, Resident Of B-17, Natraj Nagar, Near Imliwala Phatak, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.). 5. Govind Singh Son Of Shri M.p. Verma, Resident Oflakhaji Ki Dhani, Opp. Hotel Olympia, Tonk Road, Jaipur. At Present Resident Of B-77, Shiv Vihar Vistar, Manyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.). 6. Ravindra Kumar Son Of Shri Niranjan Lal Verma C/o Shri S.l. Bhandari, Keshariganj, Ajmer (Raj.). 7. Praveen Kumar Nandi Son Of Shri A.p. Nandi, Resident Of Vishnu Hill, Town Colony, House No. 1273/35, Ajmer (Raj.). 8. Ramswaroop Khandelwal Son Of Kanaram, Resident Of 1109/1 Tapaswi Bhawna Wali Gali, Ashok Vihar Colony, Shantipura, Ajmer (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus Smt. Seema Sharma, Registrar, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Parihar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raunak Singhvi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order [2025:RJ-JP:49477] (2 of 3) [CCP-636/2024] 04/12/2025 1. This Civil Contempt petition has been filed alleging non- compliance of the order dated 20.04.2024, operative portion of which reads as under:- “5. In view of the decision of this Court in Pawan Meena (supra), without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the respondents to consider the representation filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and /or his counsel. 6. It is expected that the respondents would pass speaking order upon the said representation, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that, in compliance of the order dated 13.12.2024, the respondent has passed the orders in respect of all the employees which have been annexed along with reply. 3. Learned counsel further submits that a plain reading of the order dated 13.12.2024 reveals that it is not a speaking order, as was directed by this Court, and hence, the respondent is guilty of committing contempt of the order and she must be suitably punished. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that after considering the stands of petitioners and granting them [2025:RJ-JP:49477] (3 of 3) [CCP-636/2024] opportunity of hearing and also after taking into consideration the facts submitted by them, the order dated 13.12.2024 has been passed by the respondent duly in compliance of the order dated 20.04.2024 and thus, nothing further survives in the matter. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. I have considered the submissions made, more particularly the fact that the respondent duly called upon the petitioners who were heard in person and even also permitted to file documents and their representation, after considering which, the order dated 13.12.2024 has been passed. 7. Having done that, the respondent under no circumstances can be held liable for any contempt, much less willful or deliberate non-compliance of the Court’s order. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Contempt Petition is dismissed. 9. Notices stand discharged. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIKSHA MISHRA /59