Se^'?: INTHE HGN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR zs^ Cl '". Gontempt Case^No. 2-3 72011 ^c" PETITIONERS 1. Ishwarikl Sahu S/o Shri Varun Singh Sahu, aged about 33 yea.rs, 2. Bhawanilal Sahu S/o Shri Varun Singh Sahu, aged about 35 years, 3. Ishwarlal Sahu S/o Shri Chhotelal Sahu, aged ^y^ y<e'^ ^^"^ Lat, Post Dharamjaigarh, RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR about 20 years AU above R/o village Chandrashekhpur, Tahsil District - Raigarh, (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Susanta Guha Roy, General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Raigarh Area, Raigarh, Disttict - Raigarh (C.G.) 2 A. K. Singh, Chairman-cura-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 10 OF THE CONTEMPT OP<THE COURTS ACT, 1971 ^ ,,.^-A? 3rcT ^iqM^, '^teTO, t8|ClWj,< ...&^:...a^.^^ SII^T'q^? (' an^l VI h-Ufi W 3VW SiH.lti i TCTIW WfttT 3TKW •u i SB ; Hon'bie Shri ivlanindra Mohdn shrivastava. J. 27^)8-2011 Submission of iearned c<l 'VV.P.(S) No.2531/11 filed bythel the respondents to consider pet] •^1'4l?TiflT1 'HTO^Tf 'Ff fe[zt <r3)^l< ^siRn 3ii^i Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, frounsel forthe petitioners. Heard. n accordance with rehabiiitatjon poiicv and award and take decision thereupon expeditiousiy, vvithout Learned counsel for the submlt certain informatlon and aQreement with the villaaers of Tor one person for every two ac| lunsei for the petitioner that on 12/5/20n, petitioners was finaliy disposed off directinfl tioners' appiication for grant or empioyment undue delay. petitioners submits that on 1/6'/2011, the respondent has informed the p^titioners that the petitioners are rea.uired to documents stating that accordina. to the yiiiaae - Laat, emptovment has oeen a.iven •es of iand and therefore, petitioners should also submit necessary documerjts with regard to such condltion, which is in accordance with the rehabilitaition pollcy ana award ana tnerefore, DV imposing such conditions, respcjndents have acted in dlsobedience of order - dated 12/5/2011 . 1, this Court finally disposed on ihe petition Vide order dated 12/5/201 findina that ihe petitioners hav| claimed employment under rehabilitation policy and that the claim of the r(etitioners does not appear to be frivoious or without any basis. In the backdi'ound, the Court observed that the case of the petitioners for srant of emiiiovment be considered in accoraance wrth th'e rehabtlltation Dolicy and award. ^ .:.^'yss^-. ^"% ~^' E\ ^yf^y^ | ^i^^^^A ^ ~ '%5a^^ '<-!,teSsi<y' XI-HC—78 sn^i ^ii'f^iN •t(«iisnt?i wqN? L.'eept! 3rcT ^I^M^, ssitTlyie, l°.i(ni<-!Li,< ^J~., &^<_ ^) 1^3 . 5^//7 ^206 sn^T-q'i^ (Tyi^t^r) ^wwafCT; air^i Si Whether such condition is adiudication in order dated 12/g respondent by .qiving such noticel with such condition, have, ln<any! ^t^[<n<^T< WH^. ^ 'f^t ^H^R ^tTsiRiqsn^i n accord-ance with the policy and award, is a matter caiiina for adiudicati(i)n. in the absence of there being any }/2011, I am not inciined to hoid that the |to the petitioners requiring, them to compiy Imanner, committed any contempt. On this aspect, there has been no adjipdication by this Court in its order dated 12/5/2011. Therefore, l am no|t inclined to issue notice. However, the petitioners woutd be at liberty to Ifile a writ Detition or take recourse to some other remedy as may be availabi^ underthe law, in case, they are aggrieved by imposing conditions vide merr|o dated 2/6/2011 (Annexure C/2'i. 'he petition is finaiiv dispo^ed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge L )i]t;1'!-- igiNBStBejfeNi