sii^r ?;!'RFIW ^n STT^T sn*i{q> •^ 75Sf •^W\(W, VnS\V' , KlvftWy _ CfA..:.Q^L.^...:.MS^. lilWiT g^f^^-"---^--—---"--"-'--^200 aii^?r tiag; (1pfy^T) ^ ?«ii^R•yfsa 3H^T APPLICANT/ PETITIONER NON-APPUCANTS : (Application under Articie 215 12ofthe Ku. Pushpa Owivedi, coujisel for the petitioner. Heard. This contempt petition h^ 215 ofthe Constitution of India r| Act 1971. The main grieyance rais^ the case of other similariy situaf^ passed in the writ petition of th^ <*l<lfi'l<i)'f 'qiwfl ^fezt <l"it$i< i|? aifiiH aii^n Alok Pandey, aged about 41 years, son of Late Shri Komal Prasad Pandey, O/o Block Resource Centre, Bamnidih, DisSrict Janjgir-Champa (CG). Premanent resident of Opposite Shanu Clne vision, Rupbani Talkies, Champa, District janjgir- Champa (CG). Versus Sonmani Vorg, I.A.S. presentiy posted as Collector, Distt. Kawardha (CG). G.C. Patle, Distt. Project Coordinator, Shiksha Mission, Collectorate Campus, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). jif the Constitution of India read with Section (^ontempt of Courts Act) [s been fiied by the petitioner under Article ^ad with Section 12 ofths Contempt ofCourt |d by the petitioner in this petition is that in ^d persons, similar order was passed as was petitioner. Those persons have been taken -Be—78 311^1 %T R;-fi'fc 'tT2ff 3R??T Si*i 3=5^ '<<N !<?»<<, ®Tflt1'l<o,RfWl^y — .C*.f^..-..S^>^7j^..p..:...S/i. 'wtR'n' %^ra? -"-'•-—-•":--v--t"!'—--sr-";tY"^ 200 aii^r TR; (4<ii('|,«i^8r) ^; TE3IW8fel3fl^I back into servics whereas the which this contempt petition has; !n Writ Petition No.1059/: has passed an order lo the effi continuing on the same post, h^ hearing". The service of the| (Annexure-P/5 fiied in W.P. Noj aliegsd that the petitloner he'reir| i.e. the date on which the Courl has not been able to raise the order dated 31.03.2006, as sud liable to be dismissed and cise ^>Tiii<?i<ili ^w^^fs^ •<R'I<$I< ^yaifin aii^i accortaingly of petitioner has not been considered, on been filed by the petitioner. '006 vide order dated 31 .03.2006, the Court ict that "in the meantime, if the petitioner is is permitted to continue till the next date of petitioner was terminated on 20.02.2006 1059/2006). In this petition, it has not been was continuing in his serv'ce till 31.03.2006, ^passed the order. Therefore, the petitioner soint that the respondents have violated the h no contempt is made out. The petition is itisdismissed. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge