Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) THIS contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents with the prayer that since respondents have committed contempt of court's orders dated 9.7.1999 (Annex. 1) passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1480/99 and 18.5.2001 (Annex. 2) passed in S.B. Civil Review Petition No. DR(J) 1834/2000 and therefore, they be punished accordingly.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this contempt petition is as follows: The petitioner served the Education Department on the post of Senior Teacher Grade II and retired from the said post on 19.3.2001. While the petitioner was in service, the Government of Rajasthan passed an order dated 25.1.1992 by which the Government employees were granted Selection Grade on completion of 9.18.27 years of service. According to the petitioner, he was granted two selection grades on completion of 9 and 18 years of service from the date of appointment and he was paid the salaries and arrears accordingly. Later on, vide order dated 27.7.1995, the Government issued a clarification in the Notification dated 25.1.1992 stating that the selection grades to the teachers shall be granted computing the period from the date of training instead of date of appointment. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioner was re -fixed and a recovery order amounting to Rs. 1,10,799.00 was passed against the petitioner. Against the re -fixation and the order of recovery, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1480/99 and that writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 9.7.1999 (Annex. 1) in the following manner: Thus, the petition is liable to be succeeded on this ground. Petition is allowed and the impugned order of selection grade are quashed. Respondents are at liberty to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and re -determine the issue after giving an opportunity of hearing and considering the effect of the judgment of this Court in Anama Chako v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., S.B.C.W. Pet. No. 2888/95 decided on 1.10.1997. Aggrieved from the said order dated 9.7.1999 (Annex. 1) passed by this Court, the respondents preferred Special Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court and accordingly, the respondents preferred a review petition being S.B. Civil Review Petition No. DR(J) 1834/2000. The said review petition was decided by this Court vide order dated 18.5.2001 (Annex. 2) in the following manner: All these review petitions have been filed on the ground that this Court was reconsidering the judgment in Anama Chako v. State of Rajasthan, reported in, 1998 WLR 424 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2412/99 State v. Sukhdev Ram Gaur. However, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court (Jaipur Bench) in D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 3661/96 Smt. Pushplata Thada v. State, decided on 26.4.2001, the State Government is not competent to withdraw the selection grade at all. As the matter stood concluded by the Division Bench judgment, the Sidngle Bench cannot consider the issue, therefore, all these review petitions are disposed of with a direction that if even now the State Government wants to pass orders it may do so in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Pushplata Thada, (supra). According to the petitioner, in view of the order dated 18.5.2001 (Annex. 2) passed by this Court, the order dated 27.7.1995 providing for computation of period for selection grade from the date of training stands quashed and, therefore, it does not survive. The further case of the petitioner is that he sent an application dated 28.6.2001 alongwith the copy of the judgment dated 18.5.2001 (Annex. 2) passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Review Petition No. DR(J) 1834/2000 and copy of the Division Bench judgment dated 26.4.2001 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3661/96, to the respondents with a request to comply with the orders of this Court. A copy of the said application dated 28.6.2001 is marked as Annex. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner also made many representations to the respondents requesting them to comply with the order dated 18.5.2001 (Annex. 2) passed by this Court. However, when nothing was heard from the respondents, the petitioner served a Notice for Demand of Justice on the respondents on 7.8.2001, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 4. But, inspite of that, the respondents have not complied with the orders of this Court. According to the petitioner, the respondents have wilfully and deliberately not complied with the orders of this Court. Hence, this contempt petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the contempt petition was filed by the respondents and it has been submitted by the respondents that pursuant to the order Annex. 2 dated 18.5.2001 passed by this Court in review petition, they have re -considered the entire case of the petitioner and thereafter, passed the order dated 18.11.2001, a copy of which is marked as Annex. R/1 and by that order Annex. R/1, pay of the petitioner was revised and re -fixed after granting selection grades counting his service right from the first date of appointment instead of the date when the petitioner had become trained. Apart from this, the amount which was earlier recovered on this count while counting the service of the petitioner from the date of training has also been refunded to the petitioner and he has already received the same on 7.2.2002, which is evident from the document Annex. R/2. In this view of the matter, the order passed by this Court on 18.5.2001 (Annex. 2) stands fully complied with. Hence, it was prayed that this contempt petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.
(3.) THERE is no dispute on the point that after passing of the orders by this Court on 7.9.1999 (Anenx. 1) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1480/99 and 18.5.2001 (Annex. 2) in S.B. Civil Review Petition (DR(J) No. 1834/2000, the respondents have passed appropriate orders in favour of the petitioner in the shape of Annex. R/1 and Annex. R/2.;