IItL WTtiKmi©ff<£e>i W&:1 CHHA' MLRH A'rBtt^SI^OK (CHHATTISGARH) Contempt Case (Q No. ^4 /2011. ,6s(icb -o/ (Arising out o^6rder dated 25.09.08 passed in writ petition No.'4972/2004 by HonTole High Court.) •^ ' 4x. / PETITIONER: Ram Yadav, son of Shri Budhu ^»'y Yadav, aged about 31 years, residence w^ .^f^^' ^ of village Sardhapath, Tahsil Bagicha "^^'~ ...'f Distorict Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. .-'' ..•'"' ^-y^ <t<?;y/"o~ ^o (Contemnorsl Versys 1. Shri Surendra Kumar Jaiswal, Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Shri ManiramLahare, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Parichayat, Bagicha, District Jaspur, Chhattisgarh. *k 3. Smt. Dasmi Bai, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bhadiya, Janpad Panchayat Bagicha, Districtjashpur, Chhattisgarh. CONTEMFT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTrTUTIQNOF INDIA READ WTTH SE^ftON 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. ^ :-HC-22 STi^T^T ^Jch 3:?^T 5h*4icb ^f^d F ^~sr ^||<4|cyl'q. ^T<1^JI^, fN^TRTy ^II^T 'q^? ,^....^.^..-...G-.G^/^ fe^ST' WWfT$b^|ch ^STT^T ^?IT^R ^Tf^T fSB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra % l.4.2011 Shri C.J.K. Rao, counsel li Heard on admission. dated 25.9.2009 passed in fh^ chi^f^i^l'i Tn^f ^ 'fe^t <Rsi^i< '^3rf^R3:n^i :oiiasx Shrivastava, J.1 ^r the pctitioner. Leamed counsel for the p^titioner submitted that vide order case of fhe petitioner as well as similarly situated persons m a ^atch of writ petitions, the order of removal of fhe petitioner filom seryice without conducting departmental enquuy was qu| though tlie petitioner has beeij dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure q other place. That. order was| 4th December, 2009, with libertl Leanied couusel for thel representation has been consi<| posted at fhe place where he w| ished by fhis Court. Thereafter, i reinstated in service, vide order -6), he has been posted at some subjected to challenge by the petitioner by filing another W|rit Petition No. 117/09. The said petition was eventually dismis^ed as wiflidrawn vide order dated to prefer representation. petitioner submits that neither [ered nor the petitioner has been as working at tlie time of remQval from service. Leamed counse^ for the petitioner submits tliat according to ti'ue spirit of the jorder of tlie Court, tlie petitioner ought to be allowed to contimjie to work at the place where he 1 rfr^ ^fe^ XI-HC-22 \,3^ ^.^^^ ^TI^T^T 'f^iW'ST^? 5^^ich ^afi^ Praveen -g^ •^|<qidzl, ^Tlly4!^* ic«yli^y STli^T 'q^T^ 'n^ ^Ri^^fS ^^j^—•••——'—*•—***-*-***t^p^ 200 fN^ST" l3RT^T ^T?IT8^: ^rf^T -^ was working on the date tlie) passed, because that order ha^ I am not inclined to counsel for fhe petitioner. Th^ Coi.irt is that the petitioner is case of the petitioner that no| passed. Case of fhe petitioner| placed at the same place. Vide C-6), the petitioner has been place. In the opinion of this cannot be said to be an act ot passed by this Court. a^cept <=hl^(d<lflt1 'RTOTt* "^ 'fe^ <p5i^l< '^'3^FT3TT^T order of removal of seryice was been quashed by ttiis Court. tlie submission of leamed effect of the order passed by the Ireinstated m sexvice, It is not the 1 order of re-instatement has been appears to be that he should be jorder dated 31.12.2008 (AnnexLire ^einstated, but posted at dilierent poLU-t, this act of tlie respondent willt'ul disobedience of the order The contempt petition h4s no merit. The same deserves to be and is accordingly dismisse4. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge '^•^f^