BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ^ BILASPUR (C.G.l. o^ CONTEMPTJPEICTION [CIVIL] N0. ^ ' f /2008 APPLICANT ^SI /^" PETITIONER „"" ??I'^.V-<f;'. ., i;C: .SV!i '•' ^"^ ^> NON-APPLICANTS 'CONTEMNORS .A^ o^L^^ <- Vidyadhar Tiwari, aged about 67 years, S/o Late Shri Tirthraj ^^^ Tiwari, R/o Chakradhar Nagar, Bangla Para, Raigarh, Tahsil & District- Raigarh [C.G.]. ^^: ^/wtA- ^" Vo ^nT-Al- ^i 1. (ShatriEa?—^S&^Joint Director, Accounts Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. The Joint Director, Accounts Treasury and Pehsion, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS e^- ^^^(^w ^^..1 \y ^•v-' CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICI.E 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. T=~ snt^^Ri ?ri?T3I1^?I 'Sh-4i<^ ^feTT -a. 'S^ 'liW\v\^, a'nly*!®,teirey wqyn grirai (^A:..^.^CC^^^S^^ •~g^ 200 3n^r •^TWtifttr SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Moha 14-03-2011 Shri Santosh KumarTiwari, Shri Dheeraj Wankhede, Heard. This contempt petition has dated 18-11-2005 passed by this < 2003 and 28-02-2003 directing reco| petitioner in excess, were quashec| entitled to full pensionary benefits wj Learned counsel for the pi recovery, which was earlier made refunded, and later on, pension 21-02-2011 by the respondent petition. Learned counsel for the in compliance of the order passed recovered from the petitipner, has al the respondent had no intention to so far as the consequent order in th| the same could not be passed, b understanding of the order of the C order required to be passed in the |: on, he was advised and on legal Considering the submission as also taking into consideration the °bl'4f<-l'41-i 111CTI '? feA^^K ^3lNlT3II^?I 1 Shrivastava, J. cjaunsel for the petitioner. cou(isel for the respondents. |been filed alleging violation of order pourt whereby the order dated 13-03- j/ery of the amount allegedly paid to the and it was held that the petitioner is jthout any deduction. fctitioner submits that the amount of from the petitioner, has now been (jayment has already been issued on di|iring the pendency of the contempt resptjindent referring to his return stated that |by this Court, the amount, which was ^eady been refunded, which shows that ffout the order of the Court. However, in ^ matter of pension case is concerned, i^cause the respondent had bonafide [ourt that except the recovery part, no (ension case of the petitioner, but later ad^ise, he has now passed the order. rfiade by learned counsel for the parties |fact in compliance of the order passed [Tflii?fe-Ti ^723<% y^- ~\ i'i:.;:—:.I K '!:sE.*-Ml^:-22 'S'sf -ii|i|ld<<, aiil'H'is, (slfliuy WWfTWHW_SS.S1.^^3M^? ^•-----•-----^:-^^ 20C •BI^T'^T K;-liFb SII^t ^f^ •M^fl Tumane by this Court, the amount which was| to the petitioner and revised pensior) am not inclined to proceed further in The petition is finally disposecf ofL ^l^ifl^'l 'RFf^' ^ f^t •tFsi-^R i73lf;gq3]^[ recovered, has already been refunded payment orders have been passed, 1 :he matter. Rule is discharged. Sd-/ ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge