1. Contempt petition alleging non-compliance of court order directing petitioner to resume duties; respondents issued contradictory posting orders and abolished post. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 599
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.
Namo Narayan Vaidh S/o Shri Vrij Mohan Vaidh - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Gayatri A. Rathore, Principal Secretary, Medical And Health And Family Welfare Department Government Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 483 of 2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1519 of 2025
Decided On : 18-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Tanvisha Pant, Adv. For Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG
For the Petitioner: Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Tanvisha Pant, Adv. For Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG
A general court order to "resume duties" is complied with when the employer provides a posting; the employee cannot allege contempt for not being posted to a preferred location if the court did not specify one.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act - Compliance with court order - Where a court directs respondents to permit a person to resume duties without specifying a particular location, the respondents are not bound to post the person at a station of their choice - Refusal to join at a location designated by the employer despite a general order to resume duties does not constitute willful disobedience - Using a contempt petition to pressure authorities for a specific posting amounts to an abuse of the legal process. (Paras 5, 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
A petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a court order directing respondents to permit him to resume his duties. The petitioner sought posting at a specific health center, while the respondents had directed him to join at other designated locations. The petitioner refused to join the assigned posts and repeatedly submitted representations requesting his preferred location, claiming the court order was being ignored.
Findings of Court:
The original court order was unambiguous in directing the resumption of duties but did not specify any particular location. Evidence demonstrated that the respondents had issued multiple orders for the petitioner to join duty, which the petitioner ignored in an attempt to secure a specific posting.
Issues: Whether the refusal of respondents to post the petitioner at his preferred location, despite directing him to resume duties at other locations, amounted to willful disobedience of the court's order.
Ratio Decidendi: A general direction to "resume duties" does not entitle an employee to dictate their place of posting. When an employer provides a posting in compliance with such an order and the employee refuses to join to seek a preferred location, no contempt of court is committed. Such litigation constitutes an abuse of the legal process. (Paras 8, 9)
Result: Contempt petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims respondents failed to honor order and insists on posting at specific location; respondents argue no willful disobedience and abuse of process. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Court order did not mandate location; petitioner's repeated insistence on preferred location despite valid posting orders constitutes abuse of process. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Contempt requires willful disobedience of a clear order; filing contempt without such disobedience and to pressure officials is abuse of process. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
5. Contempt petition dismissed with costs recoverable by legal services authority; rule discharged. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
6. Does contempt lie when the court order does not specify a particular action or location?
No, contempt requires willful disobedience of an unambiguous order. When the order is general and the respondent complies with a reasonable interpretation, contempt does not arise. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 )
7. Can filing a contempt petition to pressure officials into a preferred position constitute abuse of process?
Yes, where the petitioner repeatedly insists on a specific posting not mandated by any order, a contempt petition based on such pressure is an abuse of legal process and may be dismissed with costs. (Para 8 , 9 )
ORDER :
PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, according to the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1519/2025, the Court had directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to resume his duties. However, the respondents failed to comply with this order.
2. The contempt petition states that, through a representation dated 03.02.2025, the petitioner requested permission to join at CHC Narehda (Kotputli), and he also submitted another representation on 04.02.2025 to respondent No.5 seeking permission to join at that location. The petitioner subsequently filed various representations, but the respondents did not honour the Court’s order dated 30.01.2025. As a result, it is urged that respondents Nos 1 to 5 should be taken to task under the Contempt of Courts Act.
3. The respondents’ counsel countered, submitting that, following the impugned order of 30.01.2025, an additional affidavit along with Annexure-AA/1 was filed, detailing the actions taken by the respondents. Annexure-AA/1, an office order dated 03.02.2025, clearly directed the petitioner to report for duty at the Government Hospital Legislative Assembly. Nevertheless, the petitioner did not join as instructed. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued to him, requiring an explanation. Later, Annexure-AA/3 indicated that the post of DDC Helper in the Legislative Assembly had been abolished. On 15.12.2025, the petitioner was again directed by order to join as DDC Helper at Kotputli, with sanction already granted as per Annexure-AA/4, dated 10.12.2025.
4. It is further contended that no contempt had been committed, as the petitioner was merely insisting on being stationed at a specific place, which is evident from the petition itself. The petitioner’s actions are an abuse of the legal process, having dragged the respondents to court without any willful disobedience; hence, the petition should be dismissed.
5. After hearing the arguments and reviewing the record, this Court recalled that the order dated 30.01.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1519/2025 directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume duties. The order did not specify that he should join at a particular location.
6. The petitioner’s contention in the contempt petition claims that, after providing the Court’s order and his representations requesting to join at CHC Narehda (Kotputli), he was denied. He also submitted multiple requests for placement at that station, yet the respondents refused to permit it.
7. The Court’s order was unambiguous, and it did not specify any location.
8. The respondents’ record, comprising Annexures-AA/1 to AA/3, demonstrates that the petitioner was directed to join the DDC Helper post at the Legislative Assembly, but he failed to do so despite repeated notices. Furthermore, records including the order from the placement agency dated 15.12.2025, initiated by CMHO Jaipur, show that the petitioner was instructed to join at Kotputli-Behror. This clearly indicates that, despite explicit instructions, he refused to take up the DDC Helper role at the Legislative Assembly and repeatedly sought to be posted only to CHC Kotputli, a posting no order ever mandated.
9. The petition itself reveals that the petitioner was determined to push for a posting at CHC Kotputli. His actions, making several attempts to pressure officials into placing him at his preferred location, show a clear pattern. Even after the office order directing him to join the DDC Helper position at the Legislative Assembly, he continued to try to influence the process. This conduct amounts to an attempt to pressure the respondents, and the filing of the contempt petition constitutes an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the petition is dismissed, with a costs order of Rs. 5,000/-in favour of the respondent.
10. The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of Rs. 5,000/- in the Office of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur, within thr
