IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) CCL<^ C.t'YlL Contempt PetitionNo. ^7 /II rfilCIIS PETITIONER ti T^°:^s^^- ^>^^^'-^.-^"' ^.i^ 'b5' sn^'f <^^ Raj Kumar Tiwari, S/o Late Shri Gulabchand Tiwari, aged about 44 years, presently posted as a ABEO in the Office of Block Education, Kota Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus CONTEMNOR RESPONDENT Smt. Savita Rajput Block Education Offiicer, Kota Bilaspur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1979 '-^^.\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : SILA^PUK Sjngle Bench: Hon'bJe Shri Rflanlndra Mohsn Shrivastava, J. PETmONER &ESPONDENT CONTESviPT CASE JQMQM12Q11 Raj Kumar TEwari versus Smt. Savita Rajput -J' eONTEMPT_PiTmON UNDER ARTiCLE 215 OF THE CONSETUTION_OF JNDSA READWTH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTE5V3PT OF COURTS ACT Preseot: » Shri Neeraj Cnoubey, counseE for the petitioner. Shri HB. Agrawai, senior counsel along with Shri K.S. Pawar, counse! for the respondent. ORAL (Passed on 27"' of Aprii, 2011) This contempt petition has been fiied by the petltjoner aiieging vvlilfui disobedience of order dated 31/1/201 1 passed In W.P.(S) No.548/1 1. 2. Learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner filed a writ petition aggrieved by an order of transfer and non-payment of saiary, the Court directed the respondent to conslder and decide the question regarding payment of salary to the petjtjoner in view of the order passed by the Distric? Educatlon Ofricer on 27/10/10 and 16711/10. He submits that while deddina the question regarding payrnent of saiary, the respondent has rejected petltioners appilcatJQn by recording that the State Government vide its memo dated 23/12/10, has not accepted the ora'er / communication dated 27/10/10 and 16/11/10 by the District Educatlon Offlcer. 3. Learned counsei for the petitjoner contended that the respondent authority was bo.und to make payment of salary and compiiance of letters dated 27/10/10 '%-. and 16711/10 ofthe District Education Officer, in the spirit of the order passed by this Court and by not doing so, the respondent has willfuiiy disobeyed and fiouted the order of the Court. 4. On the other hand, iearned senior counsei submitted that this Court had directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. The respondent, while deciding the representation of the petitioner considered and kept in view, the orders dated 27/10/10 and 16/11/10 passed by the District Education Officer but she found that the State Government had Issued a memo on 23/12/10, which cieariy shows that the State Government did not accept the directlons Issued by the Dlstrict Education Ofricer and made strong. comments against such conduct and inltEated proceedings- agalnst the District Education Officer. in the light .of order passed by the State Government, therefore, the respondent decided the question against the petitioner. He submits that the respondent has bonafide taken a view whiie decidlng the question regarding payment of saiary and while doing so, she has kept in view, not oniy orders passed on 27/10/10 and 16711/10, as directed by this Court but has aiso taken jnto consEderation, other relevant aspects of the matter, inciuding State Governmenrs rnemo dated 23/12/10, vvhich has the effect of superceding the efncacy and Empact of letters dated 27/10/10 and 16/11/10. 5. This Court vide order dated 31/1/11, taking into consideration the submissions ofthe petitioner that the DEstrict Educatlon Officer has issued memo on 27/10/10 and 16/11/10, directlng the respondent to cancei rejievlng and make payment of saiary, disposed ofr the petltion with a direction to the respondent to consider and decide the question regarding payment of salary to the petitloner, in vlew of order passed by the Dlstrict Education Officer on 27/10/10 and 16/11/10. •^ —?%'•'>•.;.,,_^ N^--. ....:'(-^^^-.. ^ '•%»^1 ;:.^ The respondent whiie considering petitioners cialm for paymerit-ef^salary did take into consideration, the two orders of the District Education Offjcer but at the same time noted that those letters could not be foiiowed in view of the State Governmenrs memo dated 23/12/10. The respondent therefore, formed a view that in these circumstances, the petitioners salar^ could not be directed to be paid. 6. Irrespective of the fact that the order warrants interference on any ground, ! am not inclined to accept the submission of Jearned counsel for the petitioner that by such a declsion, the respondent has acted in wiiiful disobedience of the orders and directions of this Court. This Court did not direct for payment of salary but oniy to decide the said question. The respondent whlie deciding the petitioners claim has not oniy kept En view. the Eetters Essued by the District Education Officer on 27/10/10 and 16/11/10, but has aiso taken into consideration, other relevant orders inciuding the State Governmenfs memo dated 23/12/10. Therefore, the resporident has formed a bonafide opinion and taken a declslon. 7. I do not find any act of witlful disobedience against the respondent. The ruie is therefore, required to be discharged and is accordingiy discharged. However. it is made ciear that this wouid not come in the way of the petitioner in assailing correctness and vaiidlty of order dated 3/3/2011 (Annexure R/18). Deepti 8. vv'ith the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivasteva Judge