'<-''*~fAj. i IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEIVIPT CASE (Cl NO.^7-^ / 2011 Stagle BencB IN THE MATTER OF ANDBETWEEN : PETITIONER PETITIONER .••"" ^aS'- rfy" :..•••' ^€-^ '^•-^^' Matlinandan Verma, son of Shri Madhao Verma, aged about 47 years, present posted as Block Resource Centre Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, resident of 29 quarter, Civil Line, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENT Dr. Rohit Yadav, son of not know to the petitioner, age not known to the petitioner, presently posted as District Mission Director (District Collector), Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Collectorate Building, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Shri Shami Abidi, son of not known to the petitioner, age not know to the petitioner, presently posted as District Project Director (Chief Executive Officer), Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Zila Panchayat Office, Composite Collectorate Building, Raipur, Chhattiggarh Shri Deepak Dubey, son of not known to the. petitioner, age not know to the petitioner, presently posted as District Project Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi §^iiksha Mission, Zila Panchayat Office, Composite Collectorate Building, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Shri C.P. Manhar, son of not known to the petitioner, age not know to the petitioner, presently posted as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Amrito Das, ASvoca 002 6. Shri Kisun Lal Mahilange, son of not known to the petitioner, age not know to the petitioner, presently posted as Block Education Officer, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Shri Horilal Jaiswal, son of not known to the petitioner, age not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Teacher at Government Primary School, attached to High School, Village Khaira (Katgi), Block Kasdol, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Presently illegally occupying the post of Block Resource Centre Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh CONTEIVIPT PETITIQN UNDERARTICLE^IS^OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, READ WITH SECTIONS 10 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, FOR INITIATING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT / CONTEMNOR FOR BREACH AND D1SOBEDIENCE OF ORDER DATED 26.B7.2011 PASSED IN W.P.(S) N0. -^973/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ^ s!fmsst. i? & ~' r 6-»~-.> 1''l t tfTOCtr tbNieb 'S^l •^Wvi^, w^wi'c, hwvy. . Ce/rf-C^CO 2-7?A/1 sn^i ^ii ft-ii* W 3IR?I sn*<IT sn^r •<T:RFT ('^3^T) wnw^fttf an^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindife, Mohan Shrivastava. J 18-08-2011 Shri Amrito Das, cou4sel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Leamed counsel foit petitioner had challenged 1]he order of transfer dated 14.7.2011 and on 26.7.2011, interim; status quo m respect of pla I^eamed counsel for the pe duties and functions of thel not relieved. He further violating the order of statu sheets that respondent N0.1 charge of fhe ofBce on 2: written that in the place o authorized for oueration of t c(i|^i<;T4l;T 'RR?tf ^ fe^ <fS>l^l< ^SlfTOSD^I the petitioner submits ttiat the order was passed to fhe effect that cement of the petitioner, as it obtains on fhat date, shall be maititained tiU fhe next date of hearing. itioner submits that the effect of fhe interiin order is that the pet^tioner should be allowed to discharge post; because, tiU that date, he was submits fhat fhe respondents are auo bv recording on ffles and note (S- Horilal Jaiswal has taken over the ^.7.2011 and therefore it has been if the petitioner, his name should be liank accoiint. On 26.7.2011, an ulterim order has been passed that status quo in respect of pla^eiaent of fhe petitioner, as it obtains on 'that date. shall be maititained till t.he next date of hearing. ^ t XI-HC—78 ai^c^ilipiw wnw^ignh; Rrayeeii V?v '3~5Ef"4l<4l<;1'4,yfl|y<IS, rs|C11'H'4,< NT*1MI (h*licb ••W^ 200 an^r T^W (I'lid'f'i?) ^aiw^ftBsi^i From note sheets (Annejilures respondent N0^6- Horilal i^ office on 22.7.2011. Leametd bring to the notice of fh| disuirbs the petitioner aforesaid writ petition is stijl pl^cement. In these circumstancds at present, it would be pi)i Uberty to fhe petitioner to| pending writ petition. The the petition in case eventuajL Wifh fhe aforesaid disposed of. 4il<<!<'f4)-1 tlltldf if f3TS> <Fn*(l< ^rsffiltisn^i C-4 & C-5), it is Ibund fiat said to have assumed charge o^the counsel for the petitioner could not s Court any order df action whlch It is also stated fhat the pending consideration. >, mstead of proceeding in the matter, oper to dispose of this petition with move appropriate appUcation tn the ^etitioner would be at liberty to Tevive |ity arlses. (^bservations, the petition is ttoally Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^