1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.875/2013
IN
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

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.

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
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 Honble Single Judge by preferring DB Special
Appeal (Writ) No.928/2013 on certain points, however
compliance of the order of this Honble 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.
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

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.

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 Honble Court in the facts and circumstances of
this case may be passed in favour of the humble answering
respondents.
JAIPUR.
DATED:
HUMBLE ANSWERING RESPONDENTS
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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.875/2013
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6416/1997
RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
VERSUS
SHRI RAJEEV SWAROOP AND OTHERS
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF REPLY
TO 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

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.
DEPONENT
Jaipur,
Dated:
Identified by

10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.875/2013
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6416/1997
RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
VERSUS
SHRI RAJEEV SWAROOP AND OTHERS
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

VERIFICATION

11

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.

DEPONENT
Jaipur,
Dated:
Identified by;

12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.875/2013
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6416/1997
RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
VERSUS
SHRI RAJEEV SWAROOP AND OTHERS
INDEX
S. NO.

PARTICULARS.

1.

REPLY TO THE CONTEMPT

PETITION

2.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
REPLY TO THE CONTEMPT
PETITION

3.

DOCUMENTS:

ANN-CR/1
ANN-CR/2

COPY OF ORDER DT. 29.04.2013

COPY OF DUE DRAWN
STATEMENT
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
DOCUMENTS

4.

PAGE
NO.

PLACE: JAIPUR
DATED:
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
[DHARAM VEER THOLIA]
Additional Advocate General,
Government of Rajasthan
[RAJAN PRAJAPATI]
Junior Adv. to AAG