,.<l B^?:ole B&^eh IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. JUDICATURE AT BILASFUR Cu.tD Contempt Case.No. u^/2011 Petitioner Resoondents : ,-•• r^-- '.....<^^>* '^c'>-", -^^--" Awadh Kishore Rathore, aged about 63 years, Son of Shri J.S.Rathore, Retired Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Resident of 67, Sector 2, Geetanjali nagar, Raipur (C.G.). yersus 1. Mr. N.K.Aswal, Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Shri R.B.Shukla, The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3. 4. Shri R.L.Mariya, The Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Raipur Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Shri R.S.Vishwakarma, Chainnan, The Retireal Dues Committee, General Administration Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 5. Shri A.K.Toppo, Member secretary, The Retireal Dues Committee, General Administration Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 6. Shri Awadh Bihari, Member, The Retireal Dues Committee, General Administration Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 7. Shri Ravi Shankar Sharma , Member, The Retireal Dues Committee, General Administration Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 8. Shri Abdul Rauf, Member, The Retireal Dues Committee, General Administration Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ^HJCATION UNDER ARTICLE 215. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMFT COURT ACT 1971 TlieLA^rvT w^¥r'cRf?7^ WTW^r%T?Ni- HI<R'1TWW^» ^Sf ^))<q|^ ^^ ,g)^] ^4 | (o^ f^'^ |^ l^^ ^..Z»,£:,...&^.....(^...._1?^// ^^..^........................................^^^^ ^?T'(T^R' (^f^^T) 1^<TTW^f^3Tr^ SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justicel Manindra Mohan Shrivastava 21.11.2011 Mr. Pradeep Mishra, Heard. Gr»i<<{ci<<l-i'^i^<yiT "^r fe a Tfar^ -^ 3TRPT 3^?r Counsel for the petitioner. This petition has b^en filed by the petitioner alieging jorder dated 17.07.2009 passed by wiitful disobedience of the thisCourtlnW.P.(S)No.4i Learned counsel f( petitioner had filed a writ opportunity of hearing. Thj exercise includlng paym^ date of receipt of the copy 7/2008. r the petitioner submits that the etition aggrieved by non-release of fuil retirement dues liable t|o be paid. On a statement made by the Deputy Advocate Ger^eral that High Power Retiral Dues Committee has been cons the cases like that of the p|et disposed of with a directj ttituted and empowered to consider letitioner, th^ writ petition was finally lon that on ^epresentation being made by the petitioner, ttjie Committee shat! take steps and pass an order in acc<j>rdance with faw after affording ^ Court had directed that the entlre ^nt of retiral dues, if any, to the petitioner be completed wlithin a period of 4 months from the of the said order. ^FS/] 40—2/20n-l ,50,000, 4.. 3?n^r^T ^jcb ^TT 3H^T St»*li<=h / iii^ii sniicn 7^r ^ii^icn^, ^Ti1^4i<o, f®icni^^< ....^....@...^f,^/ t^ ^n^T'q^F (^qi^^r) ^TTW^rf^T^H^T z- Learned counsel for matter was taken up by| Committee. The Committe^ <?»i<il<!i<fti'RTR^Jf ^f IWl' <F3it<cl< ^T 3ff?FT 3TT^?T the petitioner submits that the the High Power Retirai Dues decided that the departmental enquiry cannot be kept peijiding for a tong time and if the departmental enquiry is nol months, the petitioner may a further submits that when tl concluded within a period of 5 gain approach the Committee. He ie departmental enquiry was not concluded within the stipul^ted period, the petitioner again approached the Committej thereafter also, the matter] ^ to take up the matter, but remained pending without any decision, which is disobedi^nceof the order passed by this Court. This Court vide order <|iated 17.07.2009 had directed the Committee to decide the| matter. The Committee, after affording opportunity of heajring to the petitioner, considered thecase ofthe petitloner an|d came to the conclusion that the departmenta! enquiry canno|t be kept pending indefinitely and a direction was issued to c^nclude the departmental enquiry within 5 months. The Comntittee has also given llberty to the petitioner to approach ^he Committee again, if the departmental enquiry is not conciuded within a period of 5 months. tSOIRWT, il^WIM—FS/l40—2/2011—1,50,000. ^ TF XI-HC—78 W^l ^T f<rti<sh ^i^v^n^t $ft*ii<^ l^; TST ^l-Mld^, ^-rtiwtfo, 'fsRrray ic;.....&±<:...G).._^^A/ *<l*lW «»Nl<!b""""""'""" """"""""""""""""^ '200 ^?T TPPF (^pf^5^) ^[!W^f^T^?r 5 Gt>f<<i<n<<ii 'RFi^if ^f f^^ <{^t^i< ^-^tRR^^r In the opinion of this Cou|1, the directions issued by this Court on 17.07.2009 stood conjiplied with. Though a direction was issued by the Commlttee|to conclude the departmental enquiry of the petitioner within ^ period of 5 months, but it was not concluded within the st|3ulated time and when the petitioner again approached tlpe Committee, the Committee has not taken any decision on l^is second representation. This is a matter relating to merits which cannot be gone into in th |of the claim of the petitioner, fe contemptpetition. This contempt petitioiji, therefore, stands finally disposed of. However, the petit] recourse of such remedy as m^y be available to him under the law for the above grievance. oner wouid be at liberty to take Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge -+-