Rajasthan High Court
CCP/1084/2026 of ROHITASHVA KUMAR DAILA S/O SHRI CHANDGIRAM, Vs SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV, on 18 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1084/2026 CNR: RJHC020618132026 | URN: CCP / 1136U / 2026 Rohitashva Kumar Daila S/o Shri Chandgiram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village And Post Khanpur, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri
[2026:RJ-JP:32878]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1084/2026
CNR: RJHC020618132026 | URN: CCP / 1136U / 2026
Rohitashva Kumar Daila S/o Shri Chandgiram, Aged About 59
Years, R/o Village And Post Khanpur, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.
Shri Sita Ram Jat, Director, Secondary, Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
3.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Meel, District Education Officer (H.q.)
Secondary Education, Jhunjhunu.
4.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Mahendra Singh Gurjar
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG with
Mr. Vishal Kumar for respondent No.4
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
18/08/2026
1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 23.04.2026.
2. Vide order dated 23.04.2026, the Court issued directions as under:- “26. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed as follows: i. The impugned order of suspension dated 12.02.2019(Annex.1) and the impugned order of dismissal dated25.02.2019 (Annex.2) do not suffer from any illegality. ii. The respondents are directed to take decision to re-instate the petitioner disposing of his representations submitted by along with the judgment of acquittal by revoking order of dismissal
[2026:RJ-JP:32878] (2 of 2) [CCP-1084/2026] without considering whether the acquittal is honourable or doubtful. iii. The respondent authorities are further directed to take necessary decisions regarding continuity of service and emoluments, if any, strictly in accordance with Rule 54 of the Rules of 1950 and other applicable circulars.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not complied with the order in a true spirit.
4. The learned AAG appearing for the respondent No.4- State of Rajasthan, submits that the order of the Court has been complied with by issuing the order dated 16.08.2026. He has placed the order dated 16.08.2026 on record, which is taken on record.
5. Having gone through the directions issued by the Court and the order passed by the respondents in compliance of the order of the Court, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents have made substantial compliance of the order of the Court.
6. Accordingly, this contempt petition is disposed of.
7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy available to him under law in case he feels aggrieved by any of the directions and condition of the order dated 16.08.2026.
8. The petitioner would also be at liberty to make an application for revival of this contempt petition, if the respondents fail to pass any order under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules after the end of the period of suspension of the petitioner. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J 70/ARTI SHARMA