1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4541/2000 (U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Suraj Bhan & Ors.) Date of Judgment : 17.02.2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Kamal Dave, for the petitioners. This petition has been filed by Railway against the order dated 1.11.2000 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Contempt Petition No.47/1999 in Original Application No.406/1996. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier on 7.1.1999 in OA No.406/1999, the following order was passed : “The O.A. Is accordingly allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for absorption/regularisation as Jeep Driver against 25% of the vacancies reserved for departmental promotion from the unskilled and semi-skilled categories subject to the applicant's passing the requisite trade test, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 2 Thus, it is clear that an order was made for considering the case of the applicant for absorption/ regularisation as Jeep Driver against 25% of the vacancies reserved for departmental promotion from the unskilled and semi-skilled categories subject to the applicant's passing the requisite trade test, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. As per learned counsel for the petitioner in compliance of the said order, the case of the respondent Suraj Bhan was considered and he was not fount suitable for absorption/regularisation and this fact was brought to the notice of learned Tribunal vide Annexure-7. Meaning thereby, the order for considering the candidature of respondent Suraj Bhan was complied with but by way of passing order dated 1.11.2000 in the contempt petition, the learned Tribunal passed an order that one months time is granted for compliance of the order dated 7.1.1999. Further, it was ordered that in case of non- compliance, we direct the respondent No.1 shall be present before the Court on the next date of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this petition has been filed only against the order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has directed the respondent No.1 to remain present before the Court 3 on the next date of hearing. After perusing the pleadings of this writ petition and considering the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that once the order passed by Tribunal in O.A. No.406/1996 has been complied with then the order for securing the presence of respondent No.1 for non compliance of the order is not justified. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 1.11.2000 passed by Tribunal for securing personal presence of respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. If the contempt petition is still pending with the tribunal, the Tribunal may proceed with the same without compelling the respondent No.1 to remain present before the Court. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J (A.M. KAPADIA), J arun