Prem Shanker Asopa, J. - (1.) BY this contempt petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for non implementation of the judgment dt. 16.07.2007 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal ') in Appeal No. 952/2006 which has been upheld by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 45/2008 State of Rajasthan v. Dr. V.K. Kaushik and Anr. by dismissing the said writ petition on 16.09.2008.
(2.) SUBMISSION of counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents are not implementing the judgment of the Tribunal dt. 16.07.2007 particularly even after the dismissal of writ petition against the said judgment of Tribunal, therefore contempt proceedings should be initiated against them. The petitioner has directly approached this Court for initiation of the contempt proceedings simply on the ground that the writ petition against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal was dismissed on 16.09.2008. The dismissal order of the writ petition is as follows: In the present writ petition, the petitioner -State has challenged the order dt. 16.07.2007 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by which the Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 and granted consequential benefits on the post of Director. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 has not filed the application for condonation of delay as the appeal was filed by the petitioner after an inordinate delay and thus the appeal was barred by limitation and the learned Tribunal has condoned the delay at its own. The Tribunal has granted all consequential benefits instead of notional benefits vide its order dt. 16.07.2007. Vide orders dt. 20.03.2002, 23.03.2002, 06.04.2002 and 08.05.2002 and 10.04.2002 the petitioner has granted only notional benefits to respondent No. 1 and the aforesaid orders are quashed and set aside to the extent that notional benefits were granted to the respondent No. 1 and instead of notional benefits, actual benefit has been granted. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. I have also gone through the judgment passed by the Tribunal. It is not disputed that the Tribunal has only granted actual benefits instead of notional benefits. This Court finds no force in the present writ petition and no interference in the order passed by the Tribunal is required. Consequently, the writ petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (emphasis supplied)
(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid order dt. 16.09.2008 would reveal that this Court has simply not interfered with the judgment of the Tribunal dt. 16.07.2007 and no direction for implementation of the same has been issued.;