IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDIGATUREAT BILASPUR (C.G.) CONTEMPT CASE (C)N0. 7-6 /201I IGi CONTEMPT CASE UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OFTHE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971. PETITIONER talN—NNN» Ram Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Malkham Verma, aged about 54 years, R/o yillage Kachandar, P.0. Karanja Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg (CG.) RESPONDENT Shri R.K. Verma, Personal Manager, Bharatiya Ispat Pradhikaran, Sale Refractory Unit, Maroda, Bhilai, District Durg (CG.) ^ XI-HC-22 ^sr ••qraicpT, '^itwie. fawi'My ^ ,(jTY7..tC<37.fc.../?^11 Wl^TT (tilldi "~""""""""TF^ 200 311^1'<?! 'f?^" 3115^1 sk4i<* 'Hfta sn^l ?®lTWgft;T JSB: HON'BLE SHRI MAMItDRA M0HAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. 125.7.2011 Shri Sarijay S. Agrawal, coua^el for the petitioner. Shri R.M. Solapurkar, couns Leamed couusel for the pet^tioner subiaits fhat though the respondents have considered representation of the petitiouer, fhi ^nd passed an order on the order is not prop^lsbecause by order dated 11.7.2011, the pel^tioner has been given fi'esh appoiatment iastead of he bemg| reinstated in service. He jrespondents tantainount to submits fhat fhis action of fhe wiUful disobedience of the order p^ssed by this Court because this Coiut has ordered the co^npetent authorily to pass appropriate order iu accordaace aspects ofthe case. On the other Iiand, leamed submits fhat in respecttul coiapli^nce of the order passed by this Court, fhe claun of fhe pe|titioner was examined and uetttioner was foimd entiUed for t fh.ereforc, an order of appoin.tmei(t was issued on 11.7.2011, He further submits fhat tfae cond1 that fhere was no intention of Qo; aad iu the contempt proceedifigs, the petitioner caiuiot chaUenge the legaUly or iUegaUty <])f fhe order, which has been passed ia conipliaace offhe order <|>fthc Court. Froin the avenaents laade i^i the petition aad ttie repty, which' has been filed by the respoi^dent, it has been stated fhat ^rai^l<f?ll tTR^Tf ^ f^St •(.f^l'^K ^TsiPgqsn^i I for fhe respondent. ^itti law considering aU the coiiusel for fhe respondent cinstateiuent ia service and jict of the respoudent shows jtitiag fhe order of fhe Court r;S sRn-f ^ fXSSliS&'Sff,. •. :XI-HC-22 -S^T -affqi^pl, dtily'lti. fawKiy ^'^ F:.^^^" WR'iraTTKft "OT, 200 fq^ST' 3ni^^?r [t;'<i?b an^l sh11ti'CT?(I sn^i ^grw: ^af?(T 2_- Coilrt, |the respondent is not competent au|i kvas initiated fiwin luut level and fd ^uid after seeking necessaiy leyal jtaken and fiiially lettdr was ^ven t^ ^een stated that respondents have ;ompliance of the order of the ]bas been inade tbat now duriag the j3id.er has already been given to ^.ppointnient. Considermg fhe submission |the parties aad that steps were take^i ;oinpliaace of fhe order of fhe Coiu-^, jan 11.7.2011 givtug appoiatment to | ^een termed as fresh appouittue^it broceed further in fhe matter. pischai^ed. However, if fhe petitioi|iei brder dated 11.7.2011, itwould be jtake reinedy available agaiast fhe |to have beeu passed in favour ^l'qfd'^'f 'RT^TcTf ^ f^t <^R^K ^r sifigT an^f d the case ofthe petitioner irwarded for taking opiaion advice, various steps were the petitioner. It has also aken all respective steps ia rt. In addition, submissiou peudeucy of the petition, an petitiouer for his fresh ftie itiade by learued counsel for by the respondents aad ia I:, aa order has been passed |the petitiouer thoughit has t', I am not iucUned to The nde, therefore, is )i|ier is not satisfied wifh ftie |opeii«<l for fhe petitioaer to datedll.7.2011, stated ifioner. oitier ^l ftf-thellie Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge 1- [^?Rrt