HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CONTEJVIPT CASE (C ) N0.3/2010 PETiTIONER RESPONDENT Raju Prasad Dewangan, S/o Late Shri Umed, aged about 35 years, R/o Behind Jai Mauli Complex, Kali Nagar, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus M.K. Raut, Principal Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Manoj Dubey, Counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (08.01.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SiNHA. J. Heard. Petitioner -Raju Prasad Dewangan has fifed this petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondent, making aliegations that the respondent has not properly compSied with the order dated 9th of September 2009 passed in W.P.(S) No.6233/2008: By the order dated 9th of September 2009, W.P.(S) No.6233/2008 was disposed of by this Court. The following is the operative part of the order: "Applying the weii-settied prindples of Jaw to the facts of the case, the State shall consider the fact as to whether the father of the petitioner was a permanent Gangman in the work charged established, in the light of decision of this Court CONTEMPT CASE (C ) N0.3/2010 rendered in Govind (supra). Thereafter, the State is directed to consider the entitiement of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, in accordance with the poiicy." 1 ^ It appears that after passing of the said order, the respondent has considered the case of the petitioner in light of the order passed by this Court and has also given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, which is clear from para 3 of the order (Annexure P/1) and thereafter, it has been decided that the petifioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment. Since the respondent has decided the case of the petitioner on merits by passing the order- Annexure P/1, it cannot be said that the order passed by this Court has not been compiied orthere is acase ofwillful disobedience in compliance of the order passed by this Court. I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is liabie to be dismissed and is accordingiy dismissed summarily. Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha judge