R.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this contempt petition on the ground that the judgment dated 9.7.2012 passed by this court has not been complied with by the contemners -respondents. The petitioner had approached this court by filing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2191/01 for regularization of his services. According to him, despite the fact that he had been working (for thirteen years) as a driver on JCB loader with the Municipality, Sawai Madhopur, his services were yet to be regularized. Hence, his prayer before the court was that his services should be regularized by the Municipality. By judgment dated 9.7.2012, this court had passed the following directions: - Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization of his services. This would obviously be subject to possession of the required qualification by the petitioner and, for that purpose, they would be at liberty to look into the licence now obtained by the petitioner as to whether it relates to driving JCB loader or not. Required exercise may be undertaken by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(2.) MS . Gayatri Rathore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the contemners -respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for regularization in proper perspective. According to her, by order dated 12.4.2013, the petitioner's case was rejected by a Committee ostensibly on the ground that he did not complete ten years of service prior to 10.4.2006. According to the learned counsel, this is an untenable position as according to the amended Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Subordinate & Ministerial Services Rules, 1963, a person who was continuously working with the Municipality would be entitled to regularization. Since the petitioner was continuously working with the Municipality, he was indeed, entitled for regularization. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, even the order dated 14.6.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Municipality is legally untenable as the Commissioner has merely reiterated the reason given by the Committee. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the judgment dated 9.7.2012 has not been implemented properly. Hence, a contempt has been committed by the contemners -respondents. On the other hand, Mr. Ganesh Meena, the learned Additional Advocate General, has pleaded that the direction of this court to the respondents was to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services. Naturally regularization has to be done strictly in accordance with law and not dehors the law. According to the learned counsel, the amended Rule 8 of the Rules of 1963 prescribes two conditions for regularization, namely that the person must complete ten years prior to 10.4.2006, and must continue to be working with the Municipality. Keeping in mind the requirement of amended Rule 8, both the Committee and the Commissioner have considered the petitioner's case. Therefore, the direction issued by this court was duly complied with. Thus, it cannot be held that a contempt has been committed by the contemners -respondents.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.;