[2026:RJ-JP:2336] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 139/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17944/2017 1. Jeetram S/o Sh. Rohitash, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Sarekala, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar New District Khairthal-Tijara(Raj.). 2. Jamsed S/o Sh. Roshan Khan, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Sarekala, Post Chuhadpur, Police Station Tapukada, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar New District Khairthal-Tijara(Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchyatraj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Sh. Hanuman Mal Dhaka, District Collector, District Khairthal-Tijara (Raj.). 3. Smt. Pratibha Verma, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District Alwar. 4. Sh. Deenbandhu Suroliya, Add. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District Khairthal-Tijara. 5. Sh. Rajkumar Jain, District Elementary Education Officer, District Khairthal-Tijara. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Naruka, AAG with Ms. Ritika Naruka, AAAG Mr. Anshuman Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 20/01/2026 [2026:RJ-JP:2336] (2 of 2) [CCP-139/2024] 1. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that in compliance of order dated 21.03.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17944/2017, petitioners has been given appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak vide order dated 17.07.2024. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that although, some delay has occurred but such delay is bonafide and has taken place only on account of administrative procedure. He submits that in view of the fact that now, the order has been complied with, the contempt petition may be disposed of. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners objected that the non-compliance of order for around 2 years has caused severe loss of benefits to the petitioner. 3. In the light of the facts that since, substantial compliance of granting appointment to the petitioners have already been done by the respondents, there is no case of deliberate and willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. Hence, no contempt petition is made out. 4. The contempt petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. Notices stands discharged. 5. However, dismissal of this contempt petition would not prejudice any of the rights of the petitioners for claiming notional benefits, if he is otherwise entitled under the law. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/12