^ w- ^ ^>0l IN THE HON'BLE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contempt Case (C) No. j2->Q^' /2010 ^^^ Arising out of order dated 25.06.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2982 /2009 PETITIONERS v^..w .au^^'..-'' \.^4S'~ ...-^^-"^' .Vs >••" ^is^' V ^^'"••^ ^ ^L- '^•" ^ ^••^^ ^'/" ^M^ ® j S.R.^aH^ik | ^ ^n^ /• 2. 3. > Sandeep Dubey, S/o late Shri Krishna Kumar Dubey, aged about 36 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Ganiyari, Block- Durg/ Distt. Durg (C.G.) Dilip Kumar Gajpal, S/o Late Shri Kishori Lal Gajpal, aged about 39 years, Head Master, Primary School Tolagaon, Block Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Mannu Rain Patel, S/o Late Shri Sumeri Ram Patel, aged about 41 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Prim.ary School, Khursul, Block- Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Rajkapur Parkar, S/o Shri Bisaho Ram Parkar, aged about 46 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Anjora (Dhaba) s. CONTEMNORS Block Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. B.L. Kurrey, District Education Officer, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. Hemant Upadhyaya, Ex-Distt. Education Officer, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Presently working as Assistant Professor at S.C.E.R.T. office Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ^- CONTEMPT PETITION UNDRR SECTTON 10 OF CONTEMPT OF COU^T ACT 1971 READ WITH ARTTCLE '215 OF nONSTTTUTION OF INDIA. / -T- .^^"""^ ,^-saa ^ !'.. ^•"1%^ N '^^^S^, tl-HC-22- K.s.&^ ^ ^sp- 'STT^F'^T h^w ^^ sh4-iich ^f^a •^ET -^zrrard^, ^Ti1^^i(o, 'f^ray _.....G^.:....^.^^^^ f^ ^IINdl ^MJC^ 'fN^ST" ^ ^ ^T^T ^Rfi^R ^rfirr SB: Hon'bte Shri Manindra MohaniShrivastava. J 04-01.2011 Shri Somkant Verma, Ku. Pushpa Dwivedi, counsei This contempt petition has contempt proceedings a^inst the rejecting petitioner's representation, the order passed by this Court on Learned counsel for the the petitioners, claimjng two advan^ having obtained D.Ed. certfficate on| period, this Court was pleased to iiberty to the petitioner to make representation is filed by the de6ided in accordance with law on iN Learned counsel forthe authority rejected the representation), without considering the judgment of t| BharadwQj v. Municipaf Corporaiiori 96 and Gopesh Htimar Venna v. another, WP (s) No.4130 of 2005. that in view of the afore^id judgme|i ad^nce tncremente and the respondents are guilty of willfui On the other hand, leamed that as directed by this Court, th^ bfeen 25^6/09 • judgment of t|iis Court in Tftje State <^11Llfd41'1 ^i^<riT°?'fTi:3t iRn^K '^3^FT37T^T counsei|forthe petitioner^. for resp<Mident No.1. filed by the petitionere for initiatlng jrespondents on the allegatton that by |respondent No.1 has vinttfully disobeyed inW.P(S) No.2982/09. petitijaners submite that on a petitton flled by i^e increments on the ground that ttiey their own expenses during the service pnally dispose off the petilaon granting refrresentation with a direction ttiat if the petitio^ere, the same may be considered and i own merits. petftjoners submitted that tte respondent relying upon the Government Circutar the case of Yashwant Ki/meif Durg and another, 2006 fll) MPJR CG Govemmentaf Chhaffisgarh and L^amed counsel for the petitioner submits juclgmejnts, the petitioners were entitled to two circu^r does not come in tiie way. Thus, disob^dience oftiie order ofthis Court. cojunsel for the respondent No.1 submitted responctent airthority considered the [^ '^7l ^ -^. ,'.^.'\ V'.; ^^ ^^^ ^ t' /s ^,...^' ^' '^. ^ :...y" XI-HC-22 arr^r^T 'f^TW^n^T 5h^i<=ti ^rf^T Deepti ^Ef ^ii^id^, ^Tii^4i<o, f^rray 31I^T 1ER^ ^J-- (^OG CO ^;,^-l //b ^ o WWftT^TRra» •^ 200 'IN^ST' 31T^T ^^H^R'Hf^T --^- tthe n4)t represenlation of the petitioner an4 own understanding of facts and tav} for respondent No.1 submite that with and if the petitioners have any open for them to chailenge the sam^ Considering the submissions) in my considered opinion, it does Courfs order. The submission of l^ view of the orders passed by this entitled to grant of two advance i< stated in the circular/order dated 64 merits of the case. If the petitionere feel tiiat law, it is ahways open for them to reimedy a? may be awiilable to ttie^ authority has decided the non-compliance appears to have fc|< petttion is dismissed, reserving lib^ remedy availabie to them under representation. CM<L(t<rt<flr1 '^TT^f ^ 'f^^t <pi1<^l< '^3Tf^TH3^r has passed the order, according to his operating in the case. Leamed counsel order of the Court has been compiied grievance with regard to tiie decision, it is macte by learned counsel for the ^rties, appear to be willful disobedien<»of ttie l^arned counset for the petitieners that in (pourt in ottier cases, the petitlonens were (icrements, irrespectjve of the limitations P/07, are aspects to be dealt with on the th^ order pa^ed is not in accordance wfth a^sail the same by takjng recourse to such |n under the law. Rightly or wroogly, the represeijitetion of ttie petitionere. Therefore, no |een committed. Rule is discharged. The ^rty to the petitioners to take recourse to [the law, against ordere rejecttng their Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [^ '^Tr