SBCCP NO.345/2007. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.345/2007. In S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3130/2004. Bacchu Lal Napit Vs. Shri Rajiv Singh Thakur, Distt.Collector Karauli & Ors. Date of Order :- 19/8/2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Shiv Charan Gupta for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT:- This is a contempt petition filed at the instance of petitioner-Bacchu Lal Napit. It is alleged that respondents have committed contempt of the order of this Court dated 25/5/2007. 2) Petitioner filed writ petition with the prayer that respondents be directed to regularise him on the post of Class-IV. This Court while deciding the writ petition observed that since appointment of the petitioner was not in continuation, therefore, specific direction for framing scheme of regularisation of his services, as per para 53 of the judgment in State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi : (2006) 4 SCC 1 cannot be given. However, in case, any representation is submitted by the petitioner within one month, then his SBCCP NO.345/2007. 2 case be considered for full time appointment as he had discharged aforesaid nature of service for about 16 years and appropriate orders be passed within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order dated 25/5/2007. 3) Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of the court towards the order dated 21/7/2007 and has submitted that the Collector Karauli has rejected his representation by a perfunctory order and at the same time observed that petitioner can approach the government for his regular appointment. It is argued that the respondents have to go by the spirit of the order. When the government was a party to the writ petition and the government has not passed the order in the present contempt petition, the compliance cannot be taken to have been made. 4) Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the respondents have not committed any contempt, muchless deliberate or intentional contempt, of the order passed by this Court. It is contended that no specific direction was given by this Court while deciding the writ petition to give appointment to the petitioner as full time employee. The representation of the petitioner was considered and decided in the light of the observations of this Court. 5) In view of the nature of the order that was passed by the court whereby respondents were required to consider the representation and pass appropriate order within two months, it cannot be said that by not passing the order of regularisation of the petitioner SBCCP NO.345/2007. 3 or his regular appointment, the respondents committed any contempt of court. Remedy of the petitioner would lie in separate proceedings that may be taken against the order aforesaid. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. Notice of contempt is hereby discharged. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil