IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE ( C I N0. <^-3£d/2011 SS?;i''3»J PETITIONER Smt. Swapna Lahari W/o Shri A.K.Lahari, Aged about 70 years, R/o Godripara, Chirimiri, Distt. Korea-fC.G.) VERSUS Bianc' RESPONDENTS/1. CONTEMiroilS C.K.Khaitan Secretary Department ofHigher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Aarti Tiwari, Principal, Goveminent Lahari College, Chirimiri, Distt. Korea- (C.G.) <<-;iC:ONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTACT 1979 A^ €^ ^y XI-HC- -3-ST ^n-qTTT-q, wtTTr"^, rcTcTO-y ..r.^.;...c.^<.^....l€^/L, 3TR?T ^il 'gqi SIT^I ^TqNf € STT^ iq^? (^siiysq) TOirere'HfCT aii^i [SB : Hou'ble SIiri Manlndrt Mohan Shrivastava, J.1 1.11.2011 wiUful disobedience of the AppealNo.121/10. Learaed counsel for wfeift^ vfWi '^ rev. 'if'^^R ^ stRTl'f 3TTiRl Shri Suml^Otwaru., coujasel for fhe petitioner. Heard on adm.ission. This contempt petition^has been filed by fhe petitioner aUeging jorder dated 4.3.2011 passed ia Writ categoric direction has beenj appeal, in which, it has be^n clearly stated fhat fhe petitioner is entitled to leave encashment) for reniaimng period of 113 days. It is submitted fhat fhough the c^rder passed by fhe Court was brought to fhe notice of fhe respon^lents through an appUcatiori sent by registered post on 25.3.2011 from fhe respondent, nor ftjie benefits, as directed by the Court, have been extended. Later respondent No.l with a cop^ speed post, but, tiU date, no fhat once fhe representationj received by fhe respondente, directed ia writ appeal is con1[emptuous. Vide order dated 4.3 categoncaUy ordered that fhe petitioner subniits that a very issued by fhe Division Bench in writ the petitioner has not heard anything j?n, ftie petitioner sent a rem.in.der to to respondent No.2 on 22.8.2011 by steps have been taken. It is subinitted has been sent along wifh the copy of fhe order through registere^i post and speed post, stated to be non-payment of leave encashment as 2011, the Division Bench has very the petitioner is entiUed for leave .f ^ XI-HC—78 Sn^Sl'a^'S?^ •aan sn-iST wqw < Mave^i ^2. ~3'si ^fi-^'prq, 's^riTFFre, TsT?TT?TO "wr 20' W?I ~T^ {~^!^V TCnwHitgsn^ 2- ~-S"<S!:r^ TlV^i ''f TSVS ^fSK ^ S^CS .3Tlt?I co^ipUed encashnient for remaming pei stated on af&davit fhat a sent fhrough registered poi respondeiits. True it is that even fixed for complian.ee of the Court are required to be no undue advantage can be has not been fixed. Consideijui! for leave encashment benefit suf&cient tiine has elapsed. proceedings, I deem it respondents to coinply wifh If appropnate order encashment are not extended days from the date of .would be at Uberty to revive of the Court has not beeni constrained to initiate .against erring ofiicers. Wifh the aforesaid disposed of. J)enod of 113 days. The petitioner has re^resentation and copy of fh.e order was >^t and then by speed post to both the tfiough no spectfic time Itmit has been ^rder dated 4.3.2011, the orders of fhe wifh wifhin reasonable tuae and (aken nierely because speci&c tune limit Leijmg that the petitioner was held entifled |:s in respect ofthe period of 113 days, powever, instead of mitiating conteuipt to aUow little more time to the order ofthe Court. lis not issued and benefit of leave to the petitioner wifhin a period of 45 of copy of tUs order, the petitioner the petition. If it is found that the order compUed with, fhis Court would be proceedii^s and take serious action receibt conteijipt [abservations, fhe petition is finaUy Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge .>"