HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (C) No. 44/2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Shailesh Kumar Gupta, aged about 24 years, s/o Paluram Gupta, R/o Village Sitapur, Sunder Nagar, District Sarguja (C.G). Vs. 1 Shri S. Minj, Secretary, Panchayat Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G). 2. Shri Dhananjay Dewangan, s/o Shri M.C. Dewangan, Chief Executive Officer, ,Zila Panchayat, Sarguja, District Sarguja (C.G). 3. Shri Roop Kumar Tiwari, Chief Execudve Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Prateek Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (25.02.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. Petidoner Shailesh Kumar Gupta has filed this petition for inftiation of conteinpt proceedings against the respondents for the alleged default in compliance ofthe order dated 24.09.2009 passed in W.P(S).No.5594/2009. This Court while issuing the rule against the respdndents passed the following order on 24.09.2009. "Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not submitted any forged document. Even on enquiiy, it has been found that the doGuments subinitted by the petitioner are riot forged. Despite that, the respondent authorities have adopted a veiy \ unusual method of asking for a consent letter \ . from the employees stating that the employee has filed forged documents, but no FIR may be lodged. Contempt Case CC). N0. 44/2010 In default, the employee may be liable to be dismissed from service. Issue notice to the respondents, in accordanc.e with rules. In the ineantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner." Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent/authorides are not giving salary to the petitioner which amounts to violadon of the order dated 24.9.2009. Learned counsel, however, is not able to demonstrate as to why the salary of the petitioner is not being paid to him. There may be many reasons for non-payment of the salary to an employee by the employer as the payment of salaiy is subject to the law relating to it. We note that the aforesaid interim order was passed by this court in light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not submitted any forged document for appointraent to the post of Shiksha Karmi and even on enquiry it was found that the docuraents submitted by the petitioner were not forged. When the counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite that, the respondent authorities have adopted a method of pressuring the petitioner and it was also expressed that the Pirst Information Report may also be lodged. It is in that context, the order dated 24.09.2009 was passed and it was directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petidoner. In the aforesaid background of the facts, if the grievance of the petitioner is that the salary is not being paid by the authorities, no proceedings can be drawn against the authorities taking it to be violation of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any good ground to proceed in the matter of contenipt against the respondents. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/'- SunilKumar Sinha Judge Rao F' :•": •f1