JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.L.Tibrewal had not jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for constituting a Division Bench. He also submits that in view of Rule 324(2) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1982 the matter can only be heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mr. M.R.Calla who decided the writ petition or by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S.Verma, who has issued the contempt notice. He also submits that there is no urgency as personal appearance of respondent no. 3 Mr. J.P. Banal has already been exempted by Hon'ble Tibrewal, J and the petitioner has already moved a review petition before the Hon'ble Tibrewal, J. on 30.11.92 against the order dated 26.11.92 and, therefore, till the decision of review petition this Division Bench cannot hear this contempt petition. 2. On the other hand Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3 submits that the respondent no. 3 has not disobeyed the order of the Court nor he had any intention to disrespect rather the respondent as Law Secretary referred the matter to the Finance Department with a recommendation the upgrade the post of Senior Personal Assistant to the post of Private Secretary in the office of Addl. Advocate General, Jodhpur, on 19.9.92 within the stipulated period of two months in compliance of the order dated 4.8.92. He further submits that the order of learned Single Bench merged in the order of Division Bench and the Division Bench posted the matter on 15.10.92 for further arguments on the stay application, but the petitioner Akhtar Khan instead of approaching the concerned Division Bench filed a contempt petition before the learned Single Judge that too not before the concerned Single Bench. Mr. Mehta also submits. that the petitioner breached the undertaking given by his counsel that "that the respondent will not move contempt petition" and got the contempt notices issued even by suppressing the material fact of undertaking. He also submits that the State has also filed a contempt petition for breach of undertaking and suppressing of material fact against the petitioner. This Division Bench on 24.11.92 issued notice, therefore, the contempt petition filed by the petitioner Akhtar Khan deseryes to be dismissed and notices issued against the respondent no. He also submits that the State has also filed a contempt petition for breach of undertaking and suppressing of material fact against the petitioner. This Division Bench on 24.11.92 issued notice, therefore, the contempt petition filed by the petitioner Akhtar Khan deseryes to be dismissed and notices issued against the respondent no. 3 be discharged rather the petitioner be punished for contempt of court as he has breached the undertaking and suppressed the material fact. 3. We has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant orders and material on record. 4. In the instant case, the petitioner Akhtar Khan filed a S.B.C.Writ Petition No. 2900/88 before this Court praying that he may be promoted as Private Secretary in the office of the Additional Advocate General at Jodhpur by creating the post of Private Secertary in the said office or by upgrading the post of Senior. Personal Assistant, held by him. The learned Single Judge Hon'ble Justice M.R.Calla, passed following order on 13.9.1991: "Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the respondents are directed to create/upgrade the post of Private Secretary in the Office of the Additional Advocate General at Jodhpur from the year 1990-91 and in case the petitioner's name is there in the D.P.C. which met on November 15,1990, the petitioner's case may be considered for appointment on the post of such Private Secretary on the basis of the inclusion of his name in the said select list and in case he is appointed, he may be so appointed from the date on which the other incumbent in the office of the Advocate General had been appointed as Private Secretary and the petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. In case it is found that the petitioner's name is not there in the reserved list and another D.P.C. is required to be convened, the respondents will be free to do so. The aforesaid directions shall be carried out as early as possible but in no case later than January 1, 1992. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above with no order as to costs." 5. An application was moved on behalf of the State Government seeking extension of time to implement the judgment on 18.11.92. Upon the said application Hon'ble Calla J. extended the time by three months vide. his order dated 18.11.1991. 6. The State Government preferred a special appeal no. An application was moved on behalf of the State Government seeking extension of time to implement the judgment on 18.11.92. Upon the said application Hon'ble Calla J. extended the time by three months vide. his order dated 18.11.1991. 6. The State Government preferred a special appeal no. 10/92 against the order of learned Single Judge. A caveate was entered on 9.1.1992 by Akhatar Khan and after j hearing the parties, the appeal was admitted on 4.8.1992. In the stay application, the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Justice Milap Chandra Jain and Hon'ble Justice Y.R.Meena passed following order: "Heared the learned counsel. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent will not move the contempt petition. The appellants are given two month's time for consideration of the upgradation of the post of Senior Personal Assistant to the post of Private Secretary in the office o the Addl. Advocate General, Jodhpur. - The case be listed on 15.10.1992 for further arguments on the stay application and its disposal." 7. The petitioner Akhtar Khan filed a contempt petition no. 340/92 against four persons; Mr. T.V.Ramnan, Chief Secretary, Mr. Inderjeet Khanna, Finance Secretary, Mr. J.P.Bansal, Law Secretary, and Mr. Jagpal Singh, Director, State Litigation, Law Department, praying that the respondent/contemner . be awarded adequate punishment which commensurate with their contemptuous act. Hon'ble Justice R.S.Verma on 3.11.1992 passed following order in the contempt petition-: "Heard, Issue notice to J.P.Bansal, Law Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur as to why he should not be punished for contempt of this Court. He may be asked to appear personally before this Court on 18.11.1992. At. this stage, I do not deem it proper to issue notices to other respondents inasmuch as 'other Secretaries to the Govt. go by the advice of the Law Secretary and Sh. Jagpal Singh, State Litigation, Law Department, Jaipur is a subordinate of Sh. Banal." 8. It is pertinent to note that the State Government has also filed a contempt petition No. 380/1992 against the petitioner before the Division Bench praying that the contemner Shri Akhtar Khan be awarded adequate punishment keeping in view the fact that he has breached the undertaking and further that he has suppressed the material fact "that the respondent will not move the contempt-petition," once given to the Hon'ble Court has been flouted and breached without any rhyme and reason. Though the contempt was of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Milap Chandra Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.R.Meena but as Hob'ble Mr. Justice Milap Chandra Jain was on leave on medical ground the contempt petition was listed before us and this Court issued notice on 24.11.92 to the respondent Akhtar Khan to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. 9. During that time, the contempt petition No. 340/92 filed by the petitioner Akhtar Khan was listed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.L.Tibrewal and on 26.11.92, Hon'ble Justice Tibrewal passed the following order: "Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, and the submission made by Mr. M.R.Singhvi, I think it just and proper that this contempt petition should also be heard and disposed of by the D.B. The Registry is, therefore, directed to place the file before the Hon'ble Chief Justice with a request to constitute a Special Bench, as stated above, to hear this Contempt Petition." 10. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Hon'ble the Chief Justice ordered that the two contempt application be laid down before this Bench as Hon'ble Mr. Justice Milap Chandra Jain was on leave on medical ground. In this way the contempt petitions No. 340/92 and 380/92 have come up before us. Both the cases were listed on 8.12.1992 but as alleged by Mr. Singhvi that he is not aware of the date in contempt petition No.. 340/92, on the request of the parties, the case no. 340/92 was adjourned for 16.12.1992 with other case no. 380/92 already fixed. 11. It is not disputed that nobody is above Rule of Law and the Rule of Law enjoins on the Government and its Secretaries to obey Court's order. On disobedience of the judicial order of the High Court, the contempt petition should generally be dealt by the concerned Bench and one has to approach this Court with clean hands. 12. So far as the contention of Mr. Singhvi that the cases may be kept pending till the disposal of the review petition is concerned, it has no substance, in view of the fact that the order dated 26.11.92 was passed on the submissions made by him on 18.11.92 and on the submissions made by him on 26.11.92. 12. So far as the contention of Mr. Singhvi that the cases may be kept pending till the disposal of the review petition is concerned, it has no substance, in view of the fact that the order dated 26.11.92 was passed on the submissions made by him on 18.11.92 and on the submissions made by him on 26.11.92. The petitioner has also moved applications for constituting Bench on 23.11.92 and 30.11.92 which are on record and the Chief Justice who is competent to form the Bench has constituted this Bench, and we can decide the matter. Therefore, merely filing of review is no bar before this Bench to decide the matter. It is pertinent to note that all the contempt petitions have been moved after the order passed in stay application in D.B.Special Appeal No. 10/92 and 4.8.1992 and the counsel for the contemner gave an undertaking that the respondent will not move the contempt petition and the appellants were given two months time for consideration of the upgradation of the post of Senior Personal Assistant to the Private Secretary and further fixed the case on 15.10.92 for further arguments in the stay application and its disposal. The petitioner on 14.12.1992 has moved another contempt petition no. 400/92 almost on similar grounds against the same persons, who were made party in the contempt petition filed before the S.B. for disobedience of the order of Division Bench dated 4.8.1992 as the consideration of upgradation of post was not made within two months as per the order of Division Bench. The case was listed before the Regular Bench on 15.12.1992 and without issuing notice, it was ordered to be placed before this Bench. In view of the fact that both the contempt petitions filed by the petitioner are arising out of the same minutes dated 14.10.1992 alleging disobedience, the contention of Mr. Mehta that S.B. contempt petition No. 340/92 does not survive and the notice issued to the non-petitioner no. 3 may be discharged has some substance as the petitioner himself gave an undertaking before the Division Bench on 4.8.92 and thereafter it was not proper on his part to have moved contempt petition before S.B. before final adjudication of the stay application particulary when on the similar allegations he has moved another contempt petition before the Division Bench.Therefore, it will not be proper to continue the contempt proceedings is S.B.contempt no. 340/92 and the notices issued to the non-petitioner are discharged. However, as the two other contempt petitions moved by the State as well as by the petitioner are arising out of the order dated 4.8.92 and the alleged minutes dated 14.10.92, therefore, under the circumstances of the case propriety demands that it will be proper to place these contempt petitions No. 380/92 and 400/92 before the Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Milap Chandra Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.R.Meena as that Bench will give effect to its order dated 4.8.92 more effectively and appropriately as to whether any contempt is made out or not. 13. In the result, the contempt petition No. 340/92 is dismissed and the notice issued on 6.11.92 is discharged as observed above.Contemp Petition No. 340/92 Dismissed. *******