1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT Smt. Rashmi Bhatnagar Vs. Shri Vipin Chandra Sharma & Anr. (S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.956/2009) In (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6758/2007) Date of Order :- July 13, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Arun Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr.Lokendra Singh, for the contemnors. Vide order dated 17.07.2009, this Court had directed the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order for regular appointment in accordance with the aforesaid rule within a period of one month from today i.e. from 17.07.2009. The Court had also given liberty to the petitioner that in case any grievance of the petitioner subsists, the petitioner would be at liberty to file the fresh writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that although vide order dated 17.07.2009, an order for regular appointment has been passed, but the order dated 17.07.2009 has not been complied with in spirit. According to Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 17.07.2009 not only places the petitioner on probation, but also reduces the pay-scale substantially. Therefore, it adversly affects the interest of the petitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Lokendra Singh, the learned counsel for the contemnors, has contended that the direction given by this Court has been complied with. For, according to the direction, 2 the petitioner's case was considered and an order for regular appointment has been passed. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order dated 11th May, 2010, the petitioner has already been granted liberty by this Court to challenge the same by filing a fresh writ petition. Hence, no contempt is made out. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is, indeed, true that liberty was granted to the petitioner to file fresh writ petition, if the petitioner were still aggrieved by the order of regular appointment. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is obvious that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11th May, 2010. Hence, the petitioner should exercise the liberty granted by this Court. Needless to say, the contempt jurisdiction is a limited one. This Court is permitted to see whether the order has been complied with or not ? Within the limited jurisdiction, this court does not have the power to modify or to set aside the order dated 11th May, 2010. Since the direction of this Court was to consider the case of the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, obviously vide order dated 11th May, 2010, the order passed by this Court has been complied with. Therefore, no contempt is made out. With these observations, the contempt petition is, hereby, dismissed. The contempt notices are, hereby, discharged. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-