[2026:RJ-JP:8014-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 243/2026 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1251/2021 Dhapu Bai D/o Late Shri Mangi Lal W/o Shri Sonu Prakash, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of House No. 701, Behind Roadways Workshop, 3Rd Street, Opposite Ram Dayal Thekedar, Balapura, Kunhadi, Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Shri Sidharth Sihag, Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Ms. Arti Dogra, Managing Director, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur. 4. Shri Ashish Johri, Assistant Engineer, B-Iii, Jvvnl, Kota, Rajasthan. 5. Shri Shiv Kumar Jangid, Superintending Engineer, Jvvnl, Kota Circle, Kota, Rajasthan. 6. Shri Baldevaram Jodak, Assistant Secretary (Recruitment), Jvvnl, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/02/2026 1. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that rejection to grant compassionate appointment to petitioner on the ground of delay vide order dated 03.04.2025 be treated as contemptuous and contrary to the final order dated 18.09.2024 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1251/2021. [2026:RJ-JP:8014-DB] (2 of 2) [CCP-243/2026] 2. In the final order dated 18.09.2024, previous order dated 10.06.2015, denying compassionate appointment to petitioner solely on the ground of being a married daughter of deceased- employee, was set aside in the light of judgment dated 13.09.2022 passed in Case of Priyanka Shrimali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Civil Reference No.1/2022 and other connected matters) delivered by Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur and following observations were made: "6. We make it clear that this Court has not given any declaration with regard to entitlement of the petitioner. It will be open for the authorities to consider the application on its own merits in accordance with law except the ground of petitioner being married daughter." 3. Undisputedly, in the present order dated 03.04.2025, compassionate appointment to petitioner has not been declined on account of being a married daughter of deceased-employee, but has been declined on some other grounds. 4. After arguing the contempt petition at length, counsel for petitioner does not press this contempt petition and seeks permission to withdraw the same with liberty to assail the order dated 03.04.2025 in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J LALIT MOHAN /RONAK JAIMAN-4