^ ^^ iQmb IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) CONTEMPT Bl^^ON f0 N0. ^'^- OF 2008 PETITIONER ...^' ^••^y ^^ ^ff" ^A ^"\^"' ^*' .-..^5' ^^" ^^ RESPONDENT Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, aged about 66 years, S/o Late Shri Pryagdatt Sharma, R/o Village Padwapara, Kargi Road Kota, Djstrict Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ^ Shri S.K. Mandal, S/ofKnown to the Applicant, aged about 52 years, District Malaria Officer, District Durg (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 2fb) READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT. 1971 On behalf of the petitioner it is respectfully submitted:- HJGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR Sjnale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manlndra Iviohan Shrlvastava,A PETiTiONER RESPONDENT CONTEMPT CASE (Cl N0.277/2008 Shri Ram Avtar Sharma Versus Shri S.K.Mandai ^' PETiTION UNDER SECTiON 2 (b) READ WiTH SECTi_UN_1lOFTHE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 Present: » Shri Ashok Soni, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payashj, counse! for the respondent. ORAL (Passed on 9th February, 2011) i This petition. has been fsied by the petitloner aiieging non-compiiance of order dated 31/8/06 passed by this Court in VV.P.No.4671/06. 2. Learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that this Court vide order dated 31/8/06 aiiowed the petitioner to make detaiied representation to respondents No.2, 3 and 5 therein within 15 days with further direction to the respondent herein to enquire into the representation and forward the case of the petitioner regarding entitlement of GPF to respondent No.2 therein. Learned counsei for the petitioner subrnitted that the respondent though has forwarded the case of the petitioner to the office of Accountant General, the details in respect of the period from 1967 to 1969 have not been given. He further submits that the Court had directed the respondent to undertake necessary exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt of representation but the respondent though having received the representation on 18/09/06, forwarded the case on 16/11/06. Learned counsei further submits that in this manner. the /'^^ ^sa^ ^^ respondent did not carry out the order of this Court in its true spirit and wiilfuiiy disobeyed the order. 3. On the other hand, iearned counsei for the respondent submitted that the respondent, in compliance of the order passed by this Court, made necessary enqulry and enquired with regard to the ciaim of the petitioner and even though best efforte were made, the reievant records in respect ofthe period from 1967 to 1969 could not be traced and were not found in the ofrice of District Maiaria Ofricer, Durg. He further submits that upon enquiry, one cash register was found in the office of District Maiaria Orflcer, Durg which shows thatthe saiary of the petitioner In the year 1967 was Rs.39/- per month but in the absence of saiary register, the respondent Is unabie to certify the deductions of- tha gratuity in respect of the period from 1967 to 1969. He further submits that some delay was caused, due to enquiry made by the respondent. He submEts that finaiiy, when after aiE searches made, records in respect ofthe perlod from 1967 to 1969 couid not be made available, respondent vide his memo dated 16/1 1/06 forwarded the case of the petltioner to the office of Accountant Generai to certify deductions in respect of the period from 1969 to 1979. 4. From the submissions of iearned counsel for the partles and pieadings and documents on record, it is found that the respondent, though beiatediy, has sent the details with regard to the deductions in respect of the period for which the reievant records were avaiiabie in the office. As the necessary offtciai records, on the basis of which deductions couid be certified in respect of the period from 1967 to 1969, were not avaiiabie, respondent couid not send any details. Therefore, in the opinion of this Couri:, it does not appear to be a case of wiilfu! disobedience. Accordingly, the ruie is discharged. / ^•^r^ y 5. Before parting with the case, this Court wouid obsen/e that the ofrice of Accountant Generai, Account and Pension Department, Raipur (Respondent No.2 in Vv.P.No.4671/06) was also directed by this Court to decide the case of the petitioner and pass finai payment order regarding the entitiement of GPF within wo months thereafter. if the deductlons in respect of the period from 1969 to 1979 have been certified by the DEstrict Maiaria Officer, Durg and forwarded to the Office of Accountant General, the spirit of the order required the office of the Accountant Generai to release GPF amount in respect of the period for which due certincation has been made by District Maiaria Officer, Durg. If that has not been done tiii now, in compiiance of order dated 31/08/06, passed by this Court, it shouid be done now and whatever remaining baiance amount are there, shouid be reieased in vlew of order dated 31/08/06. 6. vVith the aforesaid observations, the petition is finaiiy disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Deeptl