[2026:RJ-JP:879] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3351/2012 Mathura Prasad S/o Shri Chiranji Lal, aged about 72 yeas, (Sr. Citizen), Resident of Namak Ka Katra, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Water Resources Department (Earlier known as Irrigation Department), Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department (Earlier known as Irrigation Department), Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Superintendent Engineer, Water Resources Department, (Earlier known as Irrigation Department), Bharatpur. 4. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, (Earlier known as Irrigation Department), Bharatpur. ----Respondents/Contemnors For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.C. Goyal with Mr. Chinmay Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG with Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr. Satyam Bhardwaj and Mr. Hardik Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 09/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking execution/compliance of order dated 20.01.2010 earlier passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2394/1995 and 357/1999. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the aforesaid order directions were given by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court to grant benefit of selection scale to the petitioner on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service from [2026:RJ-JP:879] (2 of 3) [CW-3351/2012] the grant of same permanent status to the petitioner as well as to consider his case for further promotion. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits then the order dated 20.01.2010 was not complied with, under considering circumstances, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1033/2010. Such contempt petition has been decided vide order dated 27.07.2011, which reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that impugned order has not been fully complied with. Learned A.A.G. appearing for contemnors has made a statement that they have fully complied with the impugned order. In view of above, the contempt petition does not survive and same is hereby dismissed. The contempt notices stand discharged. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition if new cause of action of arises.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till this date order dated 20.01.2010 passed in above writ petitions has not been complied with and the petitioner has not been granted complete benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that once the grievance of the petitioner was earlier decided vide order dated 20.01.2010 and the statement with regard to compliance thereof has been recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding contempt petition vide order dated 27.07.2011, no fresh writ petition can be filed for seeking execution/compliance of order dated 20.01.2010. [2026:RJ-JP:879] (3 of 3) [CW-3351/2012] 6. Heard and considered. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1033/2010 earlier filed by the petitioner for alleging non-compliance of order dated 20.01.2010 has already been decided by this Court after recording the statement of learned Additional Advocate General that the compliance has already been made. Although, liberty was granted by the Co-ordinate Bench, yet the liberty was confined only to the eventuality, where new cause of action has arisen. 8. From perusal of the entire writ petition, it becomes clear that nothing has been disclosed by the petitioner with regard to accrual of new cause of action after decision of contempt petition vide order dated 27.07.2011. Thus, the successive litigation for seeking compliance of the judgment, in respect of which the contempt petition has already been decided, is not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /15