- (1.) NO one appears for the petitioner. The District Judge, Jalore is present in person along with the Court Manager of the Judgeship at District Jalore. This contempt petition has been filed for compliance of the order dt. 20.9.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6014/2011 (Ruchika Kansara vs. State of Rajasthan and Others). The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge with the following directions: - "Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and respondent District and Sessions Judge, Jalore is directed to shift Ms. Preeti Saini, who has been provided appointment in the OBC category (woman) against the vacancy of General category (woman) and, in her place, the petitioner who is at S. No. 24 shall be provided appointment forthwith against the post of OBC Woman category; but, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhupal Singh's case (supra) the services of respondent No. 4 Ms. Nigahat Jahan shall not be terminated because no misrepresentation or fraud is committed by her and appointment has been provided to her by the competent authority with open eyes. But, the petitioner shall be entitled for seniority with effect from the date when respondent No. 4 was provided appointment. The petitioner shall be entitled for monetary benefits with effect from the date of judgment of this case."
(2.) IN paragraph 3 of the Contempt Petition, it is stated that, in compliance (sic) order dt. 20.9.2012 passed by the Court, the petitioner was given appointment as Lower Division Clerk vide order dt. 8.10.2012 and vide this order, the petitioner was given seniority above Ms. Nigahat Jahan. Ms. Nigahat Jahan was given appointment vide order dt. 9.6.2011. It is stated that the petitioner accordingly became entitled to get the fixation of her pay on notional basis with effect from 9.6.2011, and treating her as such, the benefit of regular pay scale was given to her with effect from 9.6.2013.
(3.) IN paragraph 5 of the Contempt Petition, it is stated that the respondent did not interpret the orders of the Court properly and has illegally refused to grant financial benefits to the petitioner as have been granted to Ms. Nigahat Jahan. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge shows that he had issued any directions to give monetary benefits to the petitioner with effect from the date of her appointment. It was notionally to be fixed from the date, when Ms. Nigahat Jahan was appointed. The learned Single Judge has directed that the benefit of seniority be given to the petitioner with effect from the date, Ms. Nigahat Jahan was appointed. He did not make the petitioner entitled to the monetary benefits with effect from the said date. The monetary benefits were directed to be given from the date of judgment of the case i.e. with effect from 20.9.2012.;