Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Dinesh Kumar Bairwa vs Shri Bhoma Ram Saini And Another on 16 July, 2018

Author: Alok Sharma

Bench: Alok Sharma

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.231/2016

Dinesh Kumar Bairwa S/o Shri Kirtan Lal Bairwa, aged about 32
years, At Present Posted And Working As Fireman On Contract
Basis In Municipal Council, Sawai Madhopur Resident of Village
And Post Phalodi, District Sawai Madhopur
                                                           ----Petitioner
                                 Versus
1.     Mr. Bhoma Ram Saini, Commissioner Municipal Council
       Sawai Madhopur
2.     Ganeshi Lal Sharma, Fire Incharge, Municipal Council,
       Sawai Madhopur
                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)      :   Mr.Rajesh Rajkumawat
For Respondent(s)      :   Mr.Nitin Sinsinwar



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

                                 Order

16/07/2018

          Mr.Nitin   Sinsinwar    appearing    for   the    respondents

submitted that the petitioner was required to join on the post of Fireman with the Municipality, Sawai Madhopur in terms of the interim order dated 6.11.2015 passed in SBCWP No.16112/2015. However he refused to join on the said post.

Mr.Rajesh Raj Kumawat counsel for the petitioner submitted that offer to the petitioner to rejoin in terms of the interim order passed by the Court on 6.11.2015 was belatedly made and hence the petitioner indeed disinclined to accept it. He submits that the petitioner however has not been paid the salary for work done when in employment with the respondents. He seeks appropriate directions for payment of due salary.

(2 of 2) [CCP-231/2016] The issue of salary is not a subject matter of this contempt petition. The interim order dated 6.11.2015 passed by this Court was as stated complied with and the petitioner admittedly refused to join duty on the said post despite so being required by the respondents.

I therefore cannot, in any circumstance find the respondents in contempt.

There is no force in the petition. Dismissed.

(ALOK SHARMA), J Himanshu/59 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)