IN THE HON'BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.^ Contempt Case f Civil) No.^^ /2011 ^Uf PETITIONER: y Shyam Lal Choudhary Srigle Bencl Aged about 59 years S/o Late Chakrawarti Choudhary Earlier Posted as Assistant Auditor And Taxation Officer R/o- Viltage Limgaon Post-Paikin, Tehsil-Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT: CONTEMNOR Gokul Prasad Patel Aged about 55 years S/o Not known to the petitioner Earlier Posted as Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, Mahasamund (C.G) Presently posted as Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, D.K.S Bhawan, Mahanadi Block, Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLEW^215 OJF__THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC—78 3T[^T ^T'f^fNR' "<T^T 3^?T ^h^Jcb lr Tumane --4-- HIHCTI ^HICft ^^t ^i^i<rt^ ^Til^^Sco, f^cni^^< ^_<:^<'<^^/c)^ UV^ 1 ^^.........................^...^..............^..^^ ^ -^200 ^Tf^?T TTO7 ((lGtil<s<<^) ?^[ R ^fta ^T^?T SB: Hon'Me Shri Manindra Mohan 23-09-2011 Shri Siddhartha Shukla, coun^ ShriAkhilesh Kumar, counsel| 4,'(q{(,j4l^ im?ffif ^v£t<r<l^ll '^^R33?T^?f Shrivastswa, J. el for the petitioner. tor respondent Heard. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment However, after going througl^ the reply fited by the respondent, 1 am not inclined to grant adjournment. The order passed by the Cou^t earlier to the effect that the representatfon made by the petitioner should be d^cided within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of tHis order. Order of the Court as stated in ttie petition was served on 01-07-2010. amount of Rs.2,31,954/- has been psfid to the petitioner by way of Bank Draft sent along with Memo dated 22-10-2010. petitioner's claim 'm respect of sal^i for payment ofsalary from the month Accordingly, the petition is fin^ n the reply fited, it has been stated that an In the opinion of this Court, that is sufficient compliance of the Courfs order to d^cide the claim of the F^titioner. Whether the petitioner is entitled payment of Sal^iry from the month of July, 2008 to August, 2009 would require adjudication. wh^h cannot be gone into the instant contempt petition. Observations, which have fc|een made in the order dated 18-06-2010 is only in the light of the claim made fcty the petitioner and was not adjudication of iry from the Month of July, 2008. Rule is therefore discharged. The petitione^ would be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy as may be avai|able to him under the law towards his claim |ofJuly2008. lly disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge