ORDER : 1. We have heard counsel for petitioners, counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-contemnors and perused the record. 2. Petitioners, being Legal Representatives of employee Late Shri Parmeshwar Lal, who allegedly worked as Lecturer in Seth G.R. Chamria P.G. College, Fatehpur, District Sikar, have preferred this Contempt Petition, raising a grievance of non-payment of the dues as per 6 th Revised Pay Commission to Parmeshwar Lal by the management and committing disobedience of the directions issued by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 06.11.2015 passed in bunch of Special Appeals (Writ), being lead case D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 663/2015 titled as State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. The Management Committee Shri Bhagwan Das Todi College . In addition, petitioners have also alleged non-compliance of the order dated 09.08.2018 passed in bunch of contempt petitions including D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1266/2018 of the present petitioners. 3. Indisputably, employee-Parmeshwar Lal or his Legal Representatives never filed any separate writ petition or appeal, before the High Court or Tribunal, claiming for determination of alleged dues and in the light of Government directions, issued by Division Bench in Bhagwan Das Todi's case (supra), Contempt Petition was/is after death of Parmeshwar Lal has been preferred, alleging disobedience of such directions qua deceased-employee-Parmeshwar Lal. 4. A copy of order dated 09.08.2018 passed in previous contempt petition of petitioners, has been placed on record, wherein the directions issued by the Division Bench in case of Bhagwan Das Todi (supra) were directed to be complied with and contempt petitions were disposed of with following further directions: "5. Therefore, in all these matters, we issue the following directions:- 1. The directions which are issued are required to be complied with by the respondents in its true spirit. 2. All these contempt petitions will be treatred as representation to the concerned Secretary. Copy of the same will be given to the concern Secretary by the petitioners and office is directed to give copy of the same to each of counsel who is appearing for the department. 3. Notice will be issued to management by the Secretary for fixing date of hearing which reads as under: In contempt Petition No.1563/2018, 1568/2018, 964/2018, 1259/2018 and 1260/2015 fixed on 31 st October, 2018 and every five matters everyday thereafter and hearing will be fixed on all working days. 4. 3. Notice will be issued to management by the Secretary for fixing date of hearing which reads as under: In contempt Petition No.1563/2018, 1568/2018, 964/2018, 1259/2018 and 1260/2015 fixed on 31 st October, 2018 and every five matters everyday thereafter and hearing will be fixed on all working days. 4. The matters will be heard within 30 days from the date of hearing and payment will be made within 15 days from the date of the order as stated hereinabove. 5. The officers concern will hear the petitioners as well as officers of the department and representative of Management and will pass a reasoned order for accepting or not accepting the claim of the petitioners. 6. All these formalities will be completed on or before 25 December, 2018 and payment will be made on or before 1 st January, 2019. 7. After this order is passed by the authority, if any of the party is aggrieved by the order, it will be open for him to challenge by way of writ or file a contempt proceedings before this Court." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, according to order dated 09.08.2018, the officers concerned were required to hear the petitioners as well as the officers of Department and representatives of management and were required to pass a reasoned order for accepting or not accepting the claim of petitioners in respect of deceased employee-Parmeshwar Lal. Such directions are well evident, from para No.5 (5) of the order dated 09.08.2018, underlined hereinabove. 5. At the outset, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents-contemnors pointed out that in furtherance to the directions issued vide order dated 09.08.2018, a fresh and reasoned order dated 21.05.2019 has been passed by the Commissioner, College Education, wherein the issue in respect of payment to ex-employee Parmeshwar Lal, based on the Due Drawn Statement (DDS) supplied by the Management of Seth G.R. Chamria P.G. College, Fatehpur, District Sikar was considered and finally following order has been passed: The copy of order dated 21.05.2019 has also been placed on record. 6. In addition, it has been pointed out that in the present contempt petition, vide order dated 10.10.2025, issue was raised about communication of the order dated 21.05.2019 to the petitioners and in that respect, an additional affidavit dated 27.10.2025 by the present Commissioner, College Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur has been submitted along with the copy of Despatch Register. In addition, it has been pointed out that in the present contempt petition, vide order dated 10.10.2025, issue was raised about communication of the order dated 21.05.2019 to the petitioners and in that respect, an additional affidavit dated 27.10.2025 by the present Commissioner, College Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur has been submitted along with the copy of Despatch Register. In that additional affidavit, supported with Despatch Register, it has been mentioned that the order dated 21.05.2019 was sent and communicated to the concerned management and particularly to the Secretary, Seth G.R. Chamria P.G. College, Fatehpur, District Sikar, entry of same finds place at Serial No.6 dated 21.05.2019 in the Despatch Register. In addition, it has been urged that additional copy of order has been sent to the petitioners vide Despatch Register No.737 dated 16.10.2025. 7. Counsel for petitioners, although denied to receive any copy of order dated 21.05.2019 so also submits that this order was passed without extending any opportunity of hearing or service of notice upon the petitioners. One extra copy of order dated 21.05.2019 has also been sent to him, today itself. 8. Be that as it may, in the present contempt proceedings, a deliberate and willful act, falling within the purview of disobedience of the directions passed by the Division Bench in case of Bhagwan Das Todi (supra) dated 06.11.2025 or the directions passed vide order dated 09.08.2018 passed in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1266/2018, is required to be seen. 9. We find that in compliance to the directions passed in order dated 09.08.2018, an order dated 21.05.2019 has been passed by the College Education. In the order dated 21.05.2019, in para No.3, there is a reference of serving a notice for hearing upon the petitioners and it has been noted that despite service, no one has put in appearance. Therefore, on the face of record, it may not be observed that the respondents have committed disobedience of the directions much less deliberate and willful issued vide order dated 09.08.2018, in the previous contempt petition of petitioners. 10. In respect of making non-payment to the petitioners (for deceased-employee-Parmeshwar Lal) in furtherance to the directions issued by the Division Bench in case of Bhagwan Das Todi (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this High Court, in other D.B. Civil Contempt Petitions of identical nature, being lead case D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1666/2018 titled as Dr. 10. In respect of making non-payment to the petitioners (for deceased-employee-Parmeshwar Lal) in furtherance to the directions issued by the Division Bench in case of Bhagwan Das Todi (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this High Court, in other D.B. Civil Contempt Petitions of identical nature, being lead case D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1666/2018 titled as Dr. Anil Kumar Mathur & Ors. Vs. Ashutosh A.T. Pednekar, Commissioner, College Education & Special Secretary & Ors. vide judgment dated 21.08.2025 has dismissed the contempt petitions after following the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in case of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 291 and Snehasis Giri Vs. Subhasis Mitra , (2023) 18 SCC 529 . We deem it apposite to reproduce the relevant part of discussion and findings of the Coordinate Bench as under: "12. We are reminded of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 291 , wherein three Judges bench of the Supreme Court has observed as under:- “6. The question then is whether the Division Bench) was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2.7.1991 Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out, whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, afresh direction by the learned single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench. 7. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. It may be open to the aggrieved party to assail the correctness of the seniority list prepared by the State Government, if it is not in comformity with the directions issued by the High Court, if they so advised, in an appropriate forum. No costs" 12.1. The view taken by the Supreme Court in J.S.Parihar (supra) has been reiterated in Snehasis Giri Vs. Subhasis Mitra , (2023) 18 SCC 529 . In Snehasis Giri (supra), it was held that in contempt proceedings of almost like persons, interim orders were passed on the basis that benefits were not confined and relief not granted only to the parties to the litigation but that the directions had the effect of in rem adjudication. The Court, therefore, directed the respondent contemnors to verify from the record with respect to entitlement of all the contempt petitioners but urged that there are express directions of this Court to release salaries of the contempt petitioners without insisting on verifying genuineness of their claims. The Court, therefore, directed the respondent contemnors to verify from the record with respect to entitlement of all the contempt petitioners but urged that there are express directions of this Court to release salaries of the contempt petitioners without insisting on verifying genuineness of their claims. Considering all the aspects, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- "10. Furthermore, there is merit in the respondents’ submission that the court, in contempt proceeding cannot enlarge its scope and examine matters which are not part of its remit, i.e. extent of the direction or orders contained in the judgement of which contempt is being alleged. In fact, in the decision in Sudhir Vasudeva (supra), it was held as follows: “19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self-determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352 , V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju, (2004) 13 SCC 610 , Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami, (2008) 5 SCC 339 and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV, (2006) 1 SCC 613 . 11. In the present case too, this court is of the opinion that the respondents’ stand that without verification of the petitioners' appointment and whether the procedures prescribed were duly followed in respect of matters such as fulfilling eligibility conditions (essential qualifications and relevant experience); availability of vacancy; staff pattern in respect of madrasas where recognition was granted and if so for what period; whether the institution was aided and recognized or not or recognized and non-aided, and if so for what duration; whether a duly empowered selection body or bodies considered the candidature of the claimant before he/she was appointed and whether the committee or body selecting the individual/claimant was constituted in accordance with the rules or guidelines, etc is justified. In these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that further proceedings cannot be continued as no determination can be made unless there is a due verification in regard to the employment of each of the petitioners. 12. Furthermore, this court, in lawful exercise of contempt jurisdiction, cannot examine the merits of a decision, whether the state or the madrasa’s stand that any of the petitioners is entitled to the benefits of being treated as an employee, having regard to the concerned rules and regulations. In J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar this court explained the limited scope of contempt proceedings, as follows, in the facts of the case: “6. In J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar this court explained the limited scope of contempt proceedings, as follows, in the facts of the case: “6. The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr S.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re- exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench." 12.2. The Supreme Court exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, thereafter constituted a Committee to examine the claims of the petitioners. 13. We noticed that in none of the orders passed by the Court, the question regarding maintainability of the contempt petition was examined. 14. It would be apposite to notice the provisions of Section 2 (b) of Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act of 1971’):- “2. Definitions…… ... (a)-------------- (b) "civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.” 14.1. Section 12 of the Act of 1971 reads as under:- “ 12. Punishment for contempt of court: (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Explanation.—An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit. (4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer. Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-sections (4) and (5): (a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. (b) “director” in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.” 14.2. Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed the law as laid down in J.S. Parihar (supra) and Snehasis Giris (supra). 15. Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-sections (4) and (5): (a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. (b) “director” in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.” 14.2. Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed the law as laid down in J.S. Parihar (supra) and Snehasis Giris (supra). 15. The petitioners’ contention of the judgment in the case of Bhagwan Das Todi (supra) being in rem and, therefore, no separate petition/application would require to be filed is found to be misconceived. The claims of the contempt petitioners are based upon separate set of fact with regard to the period of engagement, the institutes are different, the question as to when the employee was posted on the aided post and what aid was being received against their posts are all facts for which, finding is required to be given in each individual case. Such findings cannot be given in contempt proceedings. No reply can be received on facts in contempt proceedings. The nature of their termination/retirement/disengagement from such institution would also be looked into. 16. A close reading of the concluding para of the judgment passed in Bhagwan Das Todi’ (supra), clearly shows that the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the said judgment is not confined to the employees therein but also applies to several other employees who have either filed the writ petition or raised objections before the learned Tribunal. In the said context the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the principle laid down in the said case would also be applicable in case of other similarly situated persons. The ‘term similarly situated’ used in the said para cannot be read in isolation but the same is required to be read in the context, which clearly shows that the intention of the Hon’ble Division Bench is to make the principle laid down in the said case applicable also with regard to the petitioners who have already raised their grievance and submitted their independent claims before this Hon’ble Court or before the learned Tribunal. The intention of the Hon’ble Division Bench emerging of the said judgment read in its entirety is very clear that although the individual employee was required to establish their entitlement with regard to the benefits arising from their services rendered in the aided institution, however the said entitlement was to be adjudicated in view of the principles laid down in the case of Bhagwan Das Todi’ (supra). In our opinion the contempt petitioners have misconstrued the intention of the Hon’ble Division Bench and without first getting their entitlement/claim independently adjudicated before this Hon’ble Court or before the learned Tribunal have straightway proceeded to file the contempt petition before this Hon’ble Division Bench meaning thereby the contempt of Court is alleged without there being any adjudication of their independent entitlement, which is not permissible in the eye of law. 16.1. We have also noticed that in respect of most of the contempt petitioners, the compliance/compliance in part has already been made, however, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the individual cases, some benefits have not been extended to some of the contempt petitioners; which in our view, this gives rise to a separate cause of action to the petitioners, however they have contended that the complete compliance of the judgment passed in the case of Bhagwan Das Todi’ (supra) has not been made. 17. It is reiterated that the scope of interference by this Court in contempt proceedings are very limited and the fresh adjudication of the claims of the contempt petitioners with regard to the part of benefits not allowed by the State Government/Educational Institution looking to their peculiar facts cannot be done in the contempt proceedings. Since the respondents herein have considered the claim of the contempt petitioners and have already passed respective orders in the individual cases. The grievance, if any, left can be adjudicated before the appropriate authority/Court/Tribunal, however the same would not amount to wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court and, therefore, also the present contempt proceedings are not maintainable. 18. The grievance, if any, left can be adjudicated before the appropriate authority/Court/Tribunal, however the same would not amount to wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court and, therefore, also the present contempt proceedings are not maintainable. 18. We are also aware of the limited power of the Court while deciding the contempt proceedings and we refrain from enlarging the scope of contempt petition, especially when there is an availability of statutory forum of Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutional Tribunal (for short ‘ the Tribunal’), which is competent to examine the claim of the individuals and pass orders relying upon the orders passed in the case of Bhagwan Das Todi (supra). The directions issued by the Tribunal are akin to a decree passed by the civil Court and is executable in terms of Section 27 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989. 19. We, therefore, find that there is no deliberate or willful noncompliance of Court's order on behalf of the respondents. The contempt petitions are wholly misconceived and the same are accordingly, dismissed. 20. No costs. 21. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file. 11. In view of undisputed fact that no independent and separate appeal or writ petition was ever filed by the petitioners or employee-Parmeshwar Lal (now deceased), for claiming his dues and petitioners have preferred this Contempt Petition, for disobedience of Government directions, issued in Bhagwan Das Todi's case (supra), the issue raised by petitioners in this contempt petition, holding the respondents guilty for committing contempt of court, is squarely covered by the judgment dated 21.08.2025 reproduced hereinabove, as much as the speaking order dated 21.05.2019 has already been passed, hence, we do not find the action of respondents to fall within the purview of committing any disobedience much less deliberate or willful disobedience of the orders dated 06.11.2015 & 09.08.2018 referred hereinabove. 12. Accordingly, the present Contempt Petition is hereby dismissed. 13. Notices of contempt stands discharged.