WW HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASEUR Contempt Petition No. 87 of 2008 CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Rahul Jha & Mr, Vinod Chouhan, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the respondents. APPLICANTS 1. Umeshwar Ram Yadav, son of Parnu PETITIONERS Ram Yadav, aged about 39 years, working as Waterman R/o Jashpur, Tahsil Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 2. Bhiku Ram Nirala son of Beenu Ram Nirala aged about 34 years, working as m Chowkidar, Rlo. Alori, Tahsil Manora, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 3. Nandlal Dadsena son of Hetram Dadsena, aged about 32 years, working as Waterman resident of Patthalgaon Tahsil Pathalgaon Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 4, Hariyaio Bai aged about 53 years, C/o. Sudhram working as Cook R/o. Patthalgaon Tahsii Pathalgaon Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 5. Sudershan Singh son of Ram Pratap Singh aged 37 years, working as Waterman R/o Thuthiama, Tahsil Aara, Distt. Jashpur (CVG.) Vs. NON-APPLICANTS 1. Shri MK. Raut, Secretary, Department of RESPONDENTS Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Shri Durg‘esh Mishra, Coiiector (Aadim Jati Kalyan Branch Jashpur, Tehsil and Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) at present posted at Ambikapur 3. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Rajput, Assistant Commissioner, Deptt of Tribal Welfare, Jashpur Distt.Jashpur (C‘G.) 2 Q Contemm Petition No. 87 of 2008 \J® ORAL ORDER (02.12.2009) ‘SUNIL KUMAR S!NHA, J: Heard. The petitioners have filed this petition for initiaticn of proceedings of contempt against the respondents for the aileged non- compliance of the order dated 7'“ of May, 2007 passed in W‘P. (S) No. 2787/2007. By the aforesaid order passed in W.P.(S) No. 2787/2007, the impugned order under challege in the writ petition was quashed and the petitioners were held entitled to regular pay scales from the date the same had been withdrawn by the impugned order. Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argues that since no payments were madeas per entitlement held in the order dated 7‘“ of May, 2007, therefore, the petitioners had to file this contempt petition. Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that after passing of the order by this Court in the writ petition, respondent No.3 wrote memo to the Director Tribal Welfare Deptt., Raipur, whereby it was informed that Rs1,56,43,948/— would be required for making payments to the petitioners and similarly placedv other writ petitioners in whose favour the orders were passed He further submits that the same was done as sanctioned was required from the Government to make such payment. He also submits that thereafter some allotment was received and Rs.é1.55 lakhs have been disbursed in favour of the concerned employees including the petitioners proportionately and according to the affidavit filed by the concerned Secretary, balance of amount i.e. 77.27 lakhs is to be disbursed/distributed after the allocation is received in the supplementary budget. He refers to the counter affidavit of respondents 1&3. A perusal of the order passed by this Court would show that by the said order, the rights of the petitioners have been adjudicated and they were held entitled to regular pay scales from the date the same were withdrawn by the concerned impugned orders, which were quashed, but this Court did not issue a time bound directions to the respondents to make payment of arrears. in light of the above contents of the order passed by this Court if we examine the conduct of the respondents that they had taken steps for mmmmmmwwWWMWWwW ‘ W M wmwmmmmmwwWWuWWwW WWW 1 3 Contemgt Petition No. 87 of 2008 obtaining aHotment and sanction from the Government and they have ‘ disbursed major portion of the amount and are assuring that rest of the amount would be disbursed after aiiocation is received in the supplementary budget. it cannot be said that they have committed default in compliance of the order passed by this Court that too the willful default making them liable for punishment in contempt. At this stage Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, 3-! seeks permission to withdraw this contempt petition with .iiberty to file another petition, if such an exigency arises in future or there is inordinate delay in payment of balance amount or the amount iegally due to each of the petitioners as per order passed by the writ court. Permission granted. Accordingly, Contempt Petition No. 87/2008 is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioners. Sdl- Sunit Kumar Sinha Judge vatti