(2) ^-^^) Sififlte Beisch OF 2011 rr'""^ribv3^W^ preswr^®0^ os&®d""°"7^"^\ o RESPONDENT n ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) CONTEMPT CASE CCIVID N0. 5 ^3 (ARISING OUT OF WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1582/2009) PETITIONER : / S-R- Netam, S/o Motiram Netam, aged about 62 years, R/o Village Soribhat, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS Lokendra Singh Thakur, S/o Maheshwar Singh, age not known to the petitioner, At Present Working as Principal, Bhopal Rao Pawar Government Polytechnic College, Dhamtari (C.G.) CONTEMFT PETITION UNDER SECTION K OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3T?^¥?^?'f^te | ^-m -< -e., ^•^ ^IT-qi^-q, ^Hr-e"^ T^IHTT^ Cjo^e^ ^^ (Tpt5^?) ^ ^)v^. 3^/N Fl 200 'IT^R ^fiH ^T^l „„„^^^^^^^^^^^^ Shrivastava. J. 20-10-2011 Shri P.P.Sahu, counsel N Heard. This petition has been fiiei order dated 26/3/09 passed jn W| Learned counsel for the p^titioner submits that a recovery order was issued on 13/2/09 directing to recover 4 of hearing. The order was assai! vide order dated 26/3/09. Learl after the order has been passed [xcess payment without affording any opportunity led before this Court and the same was quashed ^ed counsel for the petitioner submits that even |by the Court, number of dues which are payabie amounts to withhoiding the amo if the amount which are scaie, gratuity etc. are not reiea; from the date of receipt of copy ^T^t^^ T|Tq7?n -i^ fi^ '^^TT i^- ^t-fOT ^IT^ the petitioner. by the petitioner alieging wiliful disobedience of '(S)No.1582/09. to the petitioner including payifient towards revision of pay scale under the recommendation of 6th Pay Com+ission has a!so not been released ti!! date which Ent and in effect of making recovery against the petitioner though till date, no proc|eedings have been initiated againstthe petitioner for effecting any recovery. Vide order dated 26/3/0^ recovery issued on 13/2/09 was from the petitioner uniess, the rel by this Court in para 9 of its ordel- due and payable to the petitioner in accordance with iaw. All th^ passed in W.P.(S) No.1582/09, the order of uashed. Therefore, no recovery could be made ipondent act in accordance with law as directed dated 26/3/09. Therefore, no amount, which is can be withheld uniess there is recovery made amounts which are due and payable to the petitioner are liable to be released|forthwith and the same cannot be withheld. »ayabie to the petitioner under revision of pay |ed in favour of the petitioner within one month this order, serious view of the matter would be ^^^^ ['i^\ '-HC—78 -5^ ^ip4r<7?'rr, •^^txr^ U^TT^?: L (^^W^.3(,fin 1^11 ^i^ (^'i3^^) OT^'^T^i^' j ^^T ^T^TW ^TI 3TT^I ,_< t~'~~%Ken~~agiinifiii7esponsibiemoffi Deepti ^r^f^N '^^f ~^ ftr^ '^x:$n ^3tf?f^OT^T cers including the respondent and the petitioner would be at liberty to revive this p4tition. With the aforesaid observa|ions, the petition is finally disposed orf. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge