Mahipal Singh @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Rajasthan

The petitioner has preferred the present contempt petition inter alia, alleging non-compliance of the order dated 01.05.2017, passed by this Court,

whereby the respondents were directed to issue experience certificate to the petitioner in the following terms:-

“In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to count the experience of the petitioner from the

date of appointment uptill 18.04.2013 in terms of the circular dated 24.03.2017.â€​

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that despite the order dated 01.05.2017, requiring the respondents to issue an experience

certificate from the date of appointment i.e. 13.04.2010, the respondents have issued the certificate dated 08.05.2017 for the period from 26.04.2010

to 18.04.2013.

He submitted that the order dated 08.05.2017 is in complete defiance of the directions issued by this Court inasmuch as the respondents â€

contemnors were required to issue the certificate from the date of appointment viz. 13.04.2010.

Mr. Manish Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Computer Operator with Machine,

vide order order dated 13.04.2010 at Gram Panchayat Dattani, Panchayat Samiti Revdar. In pursuance of the said order, after joining and reporting

for one day, the petitioner never turned up. He has however reported at Mandor, Shivganj on 26.04.2010 and continued there, for which certificate has

been issued.

In support of his contention, Mr. Patel referred to the attendance register of the concerned Gram Panchayat, which clearly shows that the petitioner

has never discharged his duties at Dattani Panchayat Samiti, Revdar.

He added that when the petitioner’s place of posting was changed and he was posted at Shivganj vide order dated 26.04.2017, he regularly

appeared, for which the certificate aforesaid has been issued, showing his experience from 26.04.2010 to 18.04.2013.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion

that there is no defiance of the order passed by this Court, much less willful disobedience. The order of this Court for grant of experience certificate

from the date of appointment cannot be read in isolation. Until or unless the petitioner shows that he has, as a matter of fact, worked from the initial

order dated 13.04.2010, he cannot claim a certificate from the date of appointment, merely under the cloak of the language / expression used in the

order.

In this view of the matter, it is clear that the respondents have committed no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, for which the

contempt petition is dismissed.

The notices issued to the respondents â€" contemnors are hereby discharged.