N.r. Chauhan v. Ar Bharwani Order

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 160/2019 N.r. Chauhan S/o Shri Kanji, Aged About 78 Years, R/o 37 Income Tax Colony Vaishali Nagar Ajmer (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus I. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of India New Delhi 2. Shri Ajay Bhushan Pandey Revenue Secretary In ia New Delhi De artment Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance, Govt. Of B 3. Meeta Nambiar Psinoipal Emef Tax ~ajastba~$~@~k?~e&m$ Circle B.dkRoad adipur -5 Lz & 4. B.I. Meed3 Sr. Accounts Offic centqd@oard Of Direct Taxes Ceqal Revenue Building Stat \\If 5. *'%be Pay And Accounts Officer, 4 %wd Office Ministry Of Finance, ~om~(ex, Bhikaji R.k. Puram, New Delhi- 110066. **a?*pgbp Pm"-%t 6. Pritam ~ethi,p~z&~a atset; B%: Of Baroda, Branch va is h a I i N a g xef$$@A&g&2&k ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUST HON'BLE MR. AR BHARWANI Order The present contempt petition has arisen out of an order dated 11.04.2017 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7970/2004, whereby, this Court had directed respondent to restore two advance increments to the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 4 referring to the reply filed and the annexures particularly order dated 26.03.2019 reply filed and the annexures particularly order dated 26.03.2019 followed by another order dated 26.03.2019 i.e. Annexure CR-2 would submit that the order of the Court has been complied with. We have gone through the reply filed by respondent Nos.1 & 4 as also two documents referred to above. After going through the same, we are satisfied that the order of the Court has been complied with particularly with no exception to what has been stated in the reply or the petition when the reply was filed a way 3x back. ,.',., back. ,.',., GF\ @,+,<. Soon aft the reply was .\.:'.: 2 filed by thpp&koner 9 stating G2&@ credited "in his account. As on avit was also w -way?;' are not inclined to not been credited to w -way?;' petitioner is not clear with reakXd&oe further developments. Since the orders have alc~g are not inclined to not been credited to the account of the pets Court by seeking revival r K lves in this petition as the In view of the abov order of the Court has Rule is discharg Petition is accord (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J HEENA GANDHI 115 (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J