IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR.H ATBILASPUR CONTEMPT CASEfQNo. 5n<4 OF2011. APPLICANT ./f\^^ ^.ey ^W7 ..^<ky /' ^^// ^ RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR T. N. Mishra, S/o. Shri Baburam Mishra, aged about 52 years, Lecturer, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School Bastar, District Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) VERSUS Nagendra Prasad Singh, Treasuiy Officer, Treasury Account and Pehsion Jagdalpur, District Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) :^ CONTEMPT CASE (C) UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READWITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT w^^r'f^w mT37T^^Tri^ k M 'w^rr^qt^ ^sr'^n^R^r, '^ftw?,f^RT^: n^....^nAI'....?fit-&.^'^0 • 3&^/I t "TF[ 'iOO 3^T^^(^f^^) ^<TTW^f??(^^T | ^rf^^Rf^l^tTf^TC ^3fRP:T3T?'^T SB : Hon'bleShri ManmdraRroTiaii bhnV<*liiava~±-———-"- 05-Q9-2Q11 Shri Somkant Verma, couns^i for the petitioner. Heard. Learned counsei for the peti| :ioner submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was aliowed vide order dated 6/12/2010 in W.P.(S) No.2244/10 directing consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwai v. Municipal Corporation. Dura and another reported in 2006 (li) MPJR 96 ('COi subject to verification ofthe fact as to whether the petitioner has acquired B.Ed. 4xammation certificate on his own expenses as per the circuiars dated 24/12/98 aijid 1/3/99 and further whether he has been paid two advance increments or not. Learned counsel for the represented to the Assistant Com (Annexure C/9). The Assistant Officer, Treasury Accounts and P^nsion, Jagdalpur, who has raised objection that there are no orders ofthe State. Qovernment for grant oftwo advance increments in cases where person has obtaiijied BTI/ B.Ed/ D.Ed certificate afler 1/3/99. He submits that such objection is ci^arly contemptuous and is utter violation of the order p^ssed by this Court on 6/1: in the entire petition, it ha; either informed by the petitione made to the respondent, 1 am no petitioner submits that the petitioner even nissioner vide representation dated 31/12/2010 ^ommissioner sought opinion of the Accounts ^/'10. 3 nowhere been stated that the respondent was or by any other person that the case of the petitioner is required to be d^cided in compliance of the order passed on 6/12/2010. In the absence of thqre being any such pieading or any representation inclined to proceed against the respondent. The T' \\ /[I 1 .^ ^^^5;^ ^y ^,£^ XI-HC—78 *t(*ini sb*|j^ '5^r r<<l<ll<rl^, ^Tl1<L!^<o,fcldl<Hlj,< ^^......c^-..^.^'3^1n TF[ 200 ^T^lTT^F (^?^<^T) 'w^r^rl^Tw ^7 S^ ^qNr \.,. t- Deepti ^ ^HW^H^Tr^? -?- t^ ^P-f<yff ^* fe^ Tf^^K ^3tfTO'3^T petitioner shall submit a copy of the order dated 6/12/2010 passedTh W.P.(S) No.2244/10 before the respondent vj/ithin a period of one month from today. The respondent is obiiged tol passed by the Court on 6/12/201 OJ withdrawn and appropriate orders d jdecide the matter in accordance with the order If the objection which has been raised is not ire not passed within one month from the date of making representation, the petitioner wouid be at iiberty to revive thjs contempt petition. ; With the aforesaid observati^ns, the petition is finaliy disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge