71 Rajendra Kumar Sharma Ccp

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.875/2013IN

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6416/1997

Rajendra Kumar Sharma son of late Shri Lallu

Narayan Sharma, aged about 63 years, resident

of H.No.3105, Gautam Nikunj, Bhindon Ka Rasta,

Chowkri Topkhana Desh, Jaipur (Raj.)

___PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Shri Rajeev Swaroop, I.A.S., Principal Secretary to

the Government, Department of Higher

Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat,

Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Shri Naveen Jain, I.A.S., Director, Collecge

Education, Government of Rajasthan, Shiksha

Sankul, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Smt. P. Chakrawarti, Principal, Rajasthan School

of Arts, Government of Rajasthan, Kishanpole

Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.)

___NON-PETITIONERS-CONTEMNORS

2

REPLY TO THE CONTEPT PETITION ON

BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2

To,

Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his other

companion Hon'ble Judges of the High

Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur

Bench, Jaipur.

MAY IT PLEASE THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT,

At the out-set of the reply to the Contempt

Petition, it is hereby submitted, that the answering

respondents has very high regards towards the dignity

of this Hon'ble Court and he does not think even in

dreams to flout the order of this Hon'ble Court or any

Court established in India under the Law. Though by

any deliberate action or inaction of the answering

respondents any contempt is not made out but even if

the Hon'ble Court finds that any contempt is made out,

the humble answering respondents tender their

unconditional apology for the same.

3

Keeping reserve the above submissions, the

humble answering respondents most respectfully

submit reply to the contempt petition, as under:-

1. That the present petition No.875/2013 is filed in

the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6416/1997. The

present petitioner was appointed as Assistant

Teacher Gr.III on temporary basis for three

months on 15.11.1979, which was extended and

confirmed vide order dated 31.7.1982.

2. That in the above mentioned writ petition learned

Single Judge vide order dated 4.12.2012

observed that if in the year the petitioner was

getting less than the minimum of the pay scale of

Lecturer in 1997 then he may be allowed the

same w.e.f. filing of the writ petition and to

consider his case for post of Lecturer (Sculpture)

by way of promotion with benefit of fixation and

revision of pensionary benefits. If consideration

4

comes favourable to the petitioner he may be

granted notional benefit of fixation and benefit of

revision on the pensionary benefits.

3. That the humble answering respondent

department assailed the order of Hon’ble Single

Judge by preferring DB Special Appeal (Writ)

No.928/2013 on certain points, however

compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court has

been made subject to final disposal of the special

appeal.

4. That the Hon'ble Court made a query that

whether petitioner's basic salary for the year

1997 was more than the minimum of the pay

scale of the post of lecturer (Sculpture) or not. If

the petitioner was getting basic pay more than

the start of the pay scale of the post of lecturer,

then he would not be entitled for any benefit but

if his basic pay in the year 1997 was less than the

start of or minimum of the pay scale of the post

of lecturer then he may be granted minimum of

the pay scale of the lecturer (sculpture) from the

date of filing of the writ petition.

5

That with regard to the above mentioned query,

the humble answering respondents submits that

the petitioner was getting less pay than the

minimum of the pay scale for the post of lecturer

(sculpture). That in support of the above

argument, letter dated 29.04.13 as Annex CR/1

is placed for the perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

5. That the other prayer of the petitioner was to

seek regularisation of the services. This relief was

not granted to the petitioner as the notification

dated 06.07.09 meant for those who were

appointed on temporary basis and continued for

years together. The Hon'ble Court opined that

this case was not of the similar nature. The

petitioner was initially appointed on regular basis

on the post of asst teacher grade III. The

petitioner can not be said to be temporary

employee so as to cover himself by the

notification dated 06.07.09.

6. That it was further pleaded that the respondents

no. 4 and 5 in the earlier writ petition were given

the pay scale for the post of lecturer (Sculpture)

though they were not having requisite

6

qualification. In this matter, the Hon'ble Court

opined that the respondent should consider the

case of the petitioner if consideration comes

favourable to them and granted notional benefit

of fixation and benefit of revision of the

pensionary benefits. The humble answering

respondents submit regarding this that the both

the persons in the writ petition were temporary.

They were not regular. The Honourable Court has

clearly stated that the case of the present

petitioner is different as he is a regular employee,

therefore his case can not be considered under

the notification dated 06.07.09.

7. That in the compliance of the order of the Hon'ble

Court, the petitioner has been granted minimum

of the pay scale for the post of lecturer

(Sculpture). According to the due drawn

statement, his arrear has been sanctioned from

the date of the filing of the writ petition i.e.

13.10.1997 to the date of retirement i. e.

31.01.10. That according to the due drawn

statement, attached with the letter of office of

Principal, Rajasthan School of Art, Jaipur no.

7

F1()STHA/RASCKUA/2013/107 dated 07.05.2014

placed as Annexure CR/2 for the perusal of the

Hon'ble Court, the petitioner has been sanctioned

the total arrear of Rs. 4,57,899. This payment has

been sanctioned subject to the final decision of

the Division Bench.

8. That the humble answering respondents tender

their regrets and unconditional apology for the

delay occurred in compliance of the order. The

delay is not at all intentional and wilful but the

same is procedural.

It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully

prayed that reply to the contempt petition may kindly

be taken on record and the respondent-contemnors

may kindly be discharged from the contempt notices.

Any other appropriate order or direction which is

deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the

facts and circumstances of this case may be passed in

favour of the humble answering respondents.

JAIPUR.DATED:

HUMBLE ANSWERING RESPONDENTS

8

THROUGH COUNSEL;

[DHARAM VEER THOLIA]Additional Advocate General,

Government of Rajasthan

[RAJAN PRAJAPATI]Junior Adv. to AAG

NOTES :

1. THAT no such reply to contempt petition has been filed by the respondents previously before this Hon'ble Court.

2. THAT the copy of the reply has been given to the counsel for the petitioners.

3. THAT this reply has not been typed by any official of this Hon'ble Court.

4. THAT pie-papers were not readily available, so it has been typed on stout papers by my private stenographer.

COUNSEL FOR ANSWERING RESPONDENTS

9



S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.875/2013 IN


RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMAVERSUS

SHRI RAJEEV SWAROOP AND OTHERS

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF REPLYTO THE CONTEMPT PETITION

I, .............................. W/o Shri ......................., age about ...... years, presently posted as ................................................................................., do hereby take oath and swear as under:-1. That I am the answering respondent No.... in the

present contempt petition and I am well acquainted with all the facts, as mentioned in the reply.

2. That the annexed reply to the contempt petition has been drafted by counsel under my instructions, which I have carefully gone through and fully, understood contents of various paras.

3. That the contents of reply to the contempt petition, so far as it relates to facts are true and correct on the basis of record and the legal averments are true and correct as per legal advice of the counsel.

JAIPUR.DATED:

DEPONENT

10

VERIFICATION

I, above named deponent of hereby verify on

oath that the contents of para No. 1 to 3 of my

affidavit are true and correct to my own knowledge.

No part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed there from, so help me God.

DEPONENTJaipur,Dated:

Identified by

11



S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.875/2013IN




AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DOCUMENTS

I, .............................. W/o Shri ......................., age about ...... years, presently posted as ................................................................................., do hereby take oath and swear as under:-

1. That I am the answering respondent No.2 in the

present contempt petition and I am well

acquainted with all the facts, as mentioned in the

reply.

2. That the enclosed document, Annexure-CR/1 &

CR/2 of the reply are true and correct photo

copies of their originals.

DEPONENT

12

VERIFICATION

I, above named deponent of hereby verify on

oath that the contents of para No. 1 to 2 of my

affidavit are true and correct to my own knowledge.

No part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed there from, so help me God.

DEPONENTJaipur,Dated:

Identified by;

13



S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.875/2013 IN




INDEX

S. NO. PARTICULARS. PAGE NO.

1. REPLY TO THE CONTEMPT PETITION

2. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO THE CONTEMPT PETITION

3. DOCUMENTS:

ANN-CR/1 COPY OF ORDER DT. 29.04.2013

ANN-CR/2 COPY OF DUE DRAWN STATEMENT

4. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DOCUMENTS

PLACE: JAIPURDATED:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[DHARAM VEER THOLIA]Additional Advocate General,

Government of Rajasthan

[RAJAN PRAJAPATI]Junior Adv. to AAG

Documents

71 Rajendra Kumar Sharma Ccp