Rajasthan High Court
CCP/491/2023 of SOHAN KAPUR S/O TEJA RAM Vs SH. CHANCHAL MISHRA, REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, on 12 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 491/2023 CNR: RJHC020379172023 | URN: CCP / 511U / 2023 1. Sohan Kapur S/o Teja Ram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o S- 1, Arya Vihar, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Durga Pura Jaipur. 2. Kamlesh Vaishnav S/o Shri Sawarmal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 491/2023
CNR: RJHC020379172023 | URN: CCP / 511U / 2023
1.
Sohan Kapur S/o Teja Ram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o S- 1, Arya Vihar, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Durga Pura Jaipur.
2.
Kamlesh Vaishnav S/o Shri Sawarmal Vaishnav, Aged About 38 Years, R/o A-14, Gandhi Nagar Servant Quarter, Jaipur (Raj) At Present Residing At Village Bagsuri, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer (Raj.)
3.
Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, R/o D-28 Chandra Nagar, Kalwad Road, Govind Pura, No Dukan Jhotwara, Jaipur.
4.
Satya Narayan Prajapati S/o Sharwan Lal, Aged About 38
Years, R/o A-10, Gandhi Nagar, Servant Quarter, Jaipur (Raj. ) At Present Residing At 164 Santosh Nagar, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
5.
Suresh Verma S/o Rakesh Kumar Verma, Aged About 34
Years, R/o 34 Janak Puri 1, Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur (Raj.)
6.
Chhitarmal Meena S/o Jansi Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Post Gopal Pura, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
7.
Manoj Kumar Prajapat S/o Jagdish Prajapat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 5/14 High Court Colony, Gandhi Nagar,
8.
Mahanand Kumar S/o Durga Prasad, Aged About 33
Years, R/o A-4 Gandhi Nagar, Servant Quarter Jaipur (Raj.) At Present Residing At 31 A Sachivalaya Colony, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
9.
Sunil Kumar Kotiya S/o Budhi Prakash, Aged About 38
Years, R/o 193 Raghunath Puri-2 Opp. Airport Sanganer,
Jaipur (Raj.)
10.
Rahul Kumar S/o Naresh Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o P-N- 163 Gautam Nagar, Tonk Road, Kendriya Vidyalaya Ke Peeche, Jaipur (Raj.)
11.
Ramavtar Verma S/o Late Shri Ram Gopal Verma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Teela No. 4 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) At Present Residing At House No. 17, Gorakh Nagar Goner Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
(2 of 4)
[CCP-491/2023]
12.
Vishnu Dutt Jangid S/o Gajanand Jangid, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Mukam Post Handi, Tehsil Jamvaramgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.)
13.
Puran Mal Meena S/o Shri Lalu Ram Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Post Chhareda Dani, Banaya Band District Dausa (Raj.)
14.
Nathu Lal Meena S/o Shri Ramcandra, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Mukam Post Jhar Dhani- Badal Ki Tehsil Bassi,
Jaipur (Raj.)
15.
Monu Yadav S/o Shri Shiket Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o A-4, Gandhi Nagar, Servant Quarter, Jaipur (Raj.) At Present 49 K-2, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
16.
Vikram Bhadur S/o Durga Bhadur, Aged About 32 Years, R/o A-1 Gandhi Nagar, Servant Quarter Jaipur (Raj.) At Present Residing At 5/46, High Court Colony, Gandhi Nagar Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1.
Sh. Chanchal Mishra, Registrar General High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur (Raj.) Dangiyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342001
2.
Vinod Kumar S/o Ram Niwas, Aged About 27 Years, R/o M-110, Alu Kachi Basti, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.
3.
Ganpat S/o Kanara, Aged About 40 Years, R/o F-12/22
J.D.A Colony Govind Pura, Sanganer, Jaipur.
4.
Virendra Lakhera S/o Ramvilas Lakehra, R/o 5/45 High Court Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.
5.
Govind Narayan Sain S/o Gopal Sain, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Plot No. 28, Shiv Colony, Gurjar Basti, Vidhyanagar, Jaipur.
6.
Bhupendra Lamba S/o Man Bahadur, Aged About 31
Years, R/o 68/252, Pratap Nagar Sanganer, Jaipur Since Deceased, Represented By Smt. Beli Maya.
7.
Rang Lal Meena S/o Nathu Lal Meena, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village - Heerapura, Dularav Ji, Tehsil Jamvaramgarh, District Jaipur.
8.
Mahendra Dan S/o Bhairu Dan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o E-45 Siddharth Nagar, Sector-13, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
(3 of 4)
[CCP-491/2023]
9.
Kundan Kumar S/o Ganesh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Db-1 Shastri Nagar, Opp. Bhajoriya School, Balmiki Basti, Jaipur.
10.
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Law And Legal Affairs Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Hemant Taylor
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma
Mr. Yash Joshi, AAAG
Ms. Tanisha Pant
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
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
12/08/2026 The contempt petition has been filed stating that the Court order dated 08.03.2019 required the respondents to regularize the petitioners from the initial date of appointment and also to extend benefits given to similarly placed employees, more specifically, as given in Annexure 5 dated 17.04.2013. Since consequential benefits have been given to other employees, similar benefits were to be extended to the petitioners also. Learned counsel admits that other petitioner Nos.2 to 16 have also been promoted but for different years. He submits that similarly situated persons, namely, Praveen Kumar had been promoted for vacancies of 2013- 14 for the post of JJA and as he was similarly situated as the petitioners, all the petitioners should be promoted as JJA from same year as Praveen Kumar. Reply has been filed on behalf of the High Court and it has been pointed out that the Administrative Committee resolved to
(4 of 4) [CCP-491/2023] grant benefits of regularization from the date of initial appointment and accordingly they have been granted regularization from the date of initial appointment; Minimum pay scale was also granted as granted to Praveen Kumar. Thereafter, the petitioners have also been promoted as Junior Assistant with effect from 12.12.2019. It has also been pointed out that after giving them appointment from the initial date on completion of two years, benefit of the 1st ACP on completion of nine years from retrospective dates has also been granted. So far as seniority of petitioners is concerned, the Seniority Committee has considered the matter and seniority has also been assigned. As regards the promotion is concerned, we are satisfied that all the promotion cannot be granted from the same year, as each and every promotion is based on his own service record and fixed seniority. Since all of them have been promoted (though in different years), no case for contempt is made out. The proceedings of Contempt are closed. Notices stand discharged. If any individual person has any further grievance regarding his promotion and claiming from an earlier year, he may take up the legal remedy as available in law. (CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ 120/NIDHI RAI