Rajasthan High Court
CCP/800/2024 of SATYANARAYAN PAREEK S/O SHRI PRABHU LAL PAREEK Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 11 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 800/2024 CNR: RJHC020727742024 | URN: CCP / 866U / 2024 Satyanarayan Pareek S/o Shri Prabhu Lal Pareek, Aged About 75 Years, R/o 1C-15, Vikas Nagar, Bundi (Raj.), Retired L.D.C., Nagar Palika, Bundi, Rajasthan.
[2026:RJ-JP:31595]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 800/2024
CNR: RJHC020727742024 | URN: CCP / 866U / 2024
Satyanarayan Pareek S/o Shri Prabhu Lal Pareek, Aged About 75
Years, R/o 1C-15, Vikas Nagar, Bundi (Raj.), Retired L.D.C., Nagar Palika, Bundi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Directorate Of Local Bodies, Jaipur
2.
Shri Arunesh Kumar, Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bundi (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Dharmendra Pareek
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Surya Pratap Singh for
Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG
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
11/08/2026
1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 21.03.2024, whereby the Court has directed to the respondents to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with law.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the order by the Court, the respondents have granted benefits of retiral dues to the petitioner but, not allowed the interest on the delayed payment of the retiral benefits.
3. The direction of the Court was for deciding the representation of the petitioner and the respondents in compliance of the directions of the Court have paid the retiral benefits of the
[2026:RJ-JP:31595] (2 of 2) [CCP-800/2024] petitioner. As far as the interest on the delayed payment is concerned, neither there is any such direction of the Court nor there are pleadings in the petition so that this Court can adjudicate whether delay in making the payment is attributed to the respondents.
4. Taking into consideration the fact that the retiral dues have already been paid to the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that substantial compliance has been made by the respondents.
5. Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands disposed of. Contempt notices stand discharged.
6. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available to him under law, as regards the interest of the delayed amount. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J 112/ARTI SHARMA