[2026:RJ-JP:21667-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 48/2026 In D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1001/2025 In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14029/2024 Manish Sharma S/o Late Shri Mangal Dutt Sharma, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Flat No. 402, Krishna Kripa Apartment No. 3, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)-302016 Presently Working As Deputy Director (Senor Time Scale), Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ms. Vandana Gurnani, Secretary Ministry Of Labour And Employement, Shram Shakti Bhawani, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2. Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya, Chairman Employees State Insurance Corporation, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Dlehi-110001. 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Cig Marg, New Delhi-110002. 4. Shri Ratnesh Kumar Gautam, Insurance Commissioner (P And A), Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Cig Marg, New Delhi-110002. 5. Shri Manoj Kumar Shaw, Regional Director, Esic, Regional Office, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur-302005. 6. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Mr. Divaker Tehariya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG through VC assisted by Mr. Ram Singh Bhati and Ms. Anima Chaturvedi [2026:RJ-JP:21667-DB] (2 of 6) [CMAP-48/2026] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 21/05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for both parties on the present application, seeking revival of D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1001/2025. 2. The relevant facts, in nutshell, which compelled the petitioner to file present application, are as under:- (i) Petitioner was served with a memorandum of charges dated 12.12.2019. In pursuance thereof, after disciplinary proceedings, he was punished vide order dated 17.01.2024. (ii) The punishment order dated 17.01.2024 was challenged by petitioner by filing OA No. 142/2024 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”), which was allowed vide order dated 31.07.2024. The punishment order dated 17.01.2024 was quashed, however, certain directions were issued to hold a de novo inquiry in respect of Charge No.1 (iii) Petitioner preferred DB Civil Writ Petition No.14029/2024, feeling aggrieved by the directions issued for holding a de novo inquiry in respect of Charge No.1 in the prescribed manner. The Division Bench granted indulgence and, vide order dated 30.08.2024, while sustaining the quashing of the punishment order dated 17.01.2024, respondent was set at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. (iv) Respondents convened a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 11.09.2024 for considering promotion to the [2026:RJ-JP:21667-DB] (3 of 6) [CMAP-48/2026] post of Regional Director Grade-B/ Joint Director in Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). Petitioner’s case was to be considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director in the said DPC dated 11.09.2024 against the vacancy for the year 2024. (v) Unfortunately, petitioner was not considered for promotion in the DPC held against the vacancy for the year 2024 on account of the punishment order dated 17.01.2024, whereas indeed, the said punishment order had already been quashed by the Tribunal vide order dated 31.07.2024, which was affirmed by the High Court vide order dated 30.08.2024, i.e., much prior to the date of the DPC. (vi) In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner preferred D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1001/2025, pointing out that non- consideration of his case in the DPC dated 11.09.2024 for promotion, despite quashing of the punishment order dated 17.01.2024, is contemptuous act on the part of the respondents- Authorities. (vii) When the contempt petition came up for hearing on 19.11.2025, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of respondents-contemnors conceded that, due to a miscommunication regarding quashing of the punishment order dated 17.01.2024, petitioner’s case could not be considered for promotion in the DPC dated 11.09.2024. However, he undertook that the case of the petitioner would be considered for promotion by convening a review DPC, and that the exercise would be done within a period of three months. On the basis of the aforesaid assurance and undertaking given by the learned ASG on behalf of the respondents- [2026:RJ-JP:21667-DB] (4 of 6) [CMAP-48/2026] contemnors, the contempt petition was not pressed by the petitioner and was accordingly disposed of vide order dated 19.11.2025. (viii) Thereafter, instead of convening a review DPC within a period of three months w.e.f. 19.11.2025 for considering the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Director, ESIC, against the vacancies for the year 2024, the Deputy Director (Vigilance) issued a letter dated 16.01.2026 for initiation of de novo disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. (ix) At this stage, the petitioner has filed the instant application seeking revival of the contempt petition, alleging inter alia that non-convening of the review DPC within a period of three months from 19.11.2025, as per undertaking of learned ASG made for and on behalf of respondents, is itself contemptuous and the period of three months has expired on 08.02.2026. It has further been alleged that the issuance of the letter dated 16.01.2026 is a deliberate act on the part of the respondent-Authorities to deprive the petitioner for consideration of his promotion against the vacancies for the year 2024, even at the time of review DPC to make out a ground that now disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him. It is contended that, had the petitioner’s case been considered in the DPC convened on 11.09.2024, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him on the said date, and the punishment order dated 17.01.2024 had already been quashed, therefore, petitioner would have been considered and granted promotion to the post of Joint Director, ESIC. [2026:RJ-JP:21667-DB] (5 of 6) [CMAP-48/2026] (x) In addition, it has been pointed out that during the pendency of present application, petitioner received another letter through e-mail dated 30.04.2026, directing him to appear before the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings on 12.05.2026. The said letter, being a subsequent document, is taken on record. 3. Learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of respondents, submits that for consideration of petitioner’s case for promotion, a request for convening a review DPC has been forwarded by the respondents to UPSC vide letter dated 20.04.2026, and the matter is being followed up for convening of the review DPC earliest. A copy of the letter dated 20.04.2026 has been placed on record and same is taken on record with the consent of learned counsel for petitioner. Learned Additional Solicitor General, on the strength of letter dated 20.04.2026, submits that the issue regarding convening of review DPC for the petitioner, and consideration of petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Joint Director, ESIC against the vacancies of the year 2024, which was left unconsidered in the DPC convened on 11.09.2024, on account of the erroneous pretext of penalty order dated 17.01.2024, which indeed had been quashed prior thereto, is presently under process, and at this stage, the contempt petition may not be revived, till awaiting the outcome of the review DPC proceedings. 4. 4. Taking note of the submissions made by learned Additional Solicitor General and not convening the review DPC as per assurance and undertaking given in the order dated 19.11.2025, rather initiating disciplinary proceedings, we are of the considered opinion that the issue pertaining to non-consideration of the [2026:RJ-JP:21667-DB] (6 of 6) [CMAP-48/2026] petitioner’s candidature for promotion in the DPC convened on 11.09.2024 stands revived, since on that day, neither any disciplinary proceeding against petitioner was pending, nor the penalty order dated 17.01.2024 was in-effect and further, respondents failed to honor the undertaking furnished by learned ASG, on behalf of of contemnors, at the time of disposing of the contempt petition, vide order dated 19.11.2025, whereby it was assured by learned ASG that the review DPC would be convened within a period of three months. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the instant application stands allowed. Resultantly, D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1001/2025 is hereby revived and same be listed before the Bench, having the appropriate roster. 6. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin Sharma/S-1