[2026:RJ-JP:12045] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 398/2026 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5261/2025 Rajpal Singh Meel S/o Late Sh. Ram Kumar Singh Meela, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Radha Kishan Pura, Ward No. 50, Near Tagore Bal Niketan School, Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Services Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Gayatri A. Rathore, Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Services Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, 3. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Director (Non-Gazatted), Medical And Health Services Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priya Rastogi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 23/03/2026 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5261/2025 (Rajpal Singh Meel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). It is stated that although the above writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner, yet it was with the liberty to submit a representation before the Competent Authority for reconsidering [2026:RJ-JP:12045] (2 of 2) [CCP-398/2026] transfer of the petitioner on medical reasons and to post the petitioner at a nearer place and such liberty was granted by this Court, yet despite receiving representation submitted by the petitioner, it has not been considered properly and the petitioner has been posted at a distant place. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. This Court does not find any positive directions given by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5261/2025 and specifically it was recorded that no interference was being made in order dated 25.03.2025 and simply a liberty to submit a representation was given to the petitioner with further direction of consideration to the respondents. 4. Merely, on the ground, the consideration made by respondents was not favourable to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondents have wilfully and deliberately flouted the directions given by this Court. 5. In view of above, no case for contempt has been made out, hence, the present contempt petition is dismissed. 6. However, mere dismissal of the contempt petition shall not prejudice any rights of the petitioner to challenge the fresh transfer order, in case, the petitioner is so advised. 7. Notices stand discharged. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/42