Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 342 (RAJ)

MADAN SINGH v. GOVIND SHARMA

2015-02-05

PRAKASH GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
ORDER : 1. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. This second contempt petition has been filed alleging noncompliance of the judgment and order dated 05.11.2009, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.432/2001, in which directions were issued by this Court, while considering the non-grant of actual benefits arising out of the earlier order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), dated 20.03.1986. 3. The first contempt petition was disposed of on 15.07.2011, on the prayer made by learned Additional Advocate General, to allow him two weeks time to comply with the order. While allowing four weeks time for compliance, on the assurance given, notices were discharged, and the contempt petition was disposed of. 4. It is submitted that the consequential benefits have been calculated in monetary terms, and that an amount of Rs.48,000/- was paid, which is far short of the amount, to be paid as a consequence of the judgment of this Court dated 05.11.2009. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the respondents have not taken into consideration the fact that this Court allowed seniority to the applicant over Shri Lokesh Kumar, who was promoted as Excise Officer on 28.07.1981. According to the applicant, since he was held to be senior to Lokesh Kumar, he was entitled for promotion, and that the consequential benefits should have been calculated serving on the post of Excise Officer from the year 1981 upto 1993, when the applicant retired. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General has explained that the applicant is seeking something more than the reliefs claimed in the appeals, filed before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The applicant had only prayed for consequential benefits, calculated in monetary terms. He had never claimed promotion from the same date, on which Lokesh Kumar was promoted. Relying on the relevant paragraph of the order of the Tribunal in Appeal No.441/1991, it is submitted that Lokesh Kumar had succeeded in the appeal filed by him, in which he was directed to be given promotion as Assistant Excise Officer in the vacancy with effect from the year 1976, and thus, he was promoted as Assistant Excise Officer in the year 1977-78. His further promotion as Excise Officer would not entail the same benefit to the applicant, even if he was declared to be senior to Lokesh Kumar. 7. His further promotion as Excise Officer would not entail the same benefit to the applicant, even if he was declared to be senior to Lokesh Kumar. 7. It is submitted that no relief with regard to promotion or financial benefits, to be calculated on promotion, was either claimed or adjudicated by the Tribunal, or the High Court. 8. We do not find that there was any such direction issued by a Division Bench of this Court on 05.11.2009, to grant promotion and thereafter to calculate the financial benefits, to be paid to the applicant with effect from 1981 to 1993. The claim of seniority and promotion, are two different aspects. The consequential benefits were calculated on the post of Assistant Excise Officer, and not on the post of Excise Officer, on which neither the applicant staked any claim, nor any relief was given. 9. The second contempt petition is dismissed.