IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR , , CONTEMPT CAS&^O. ^ 5n /2011 ^1^ ^po (Arising out oforder dated 30-08-2010 passed by this Hon'ble Court, in W.P. No. 4707/2004) PETITIONER ^b5^-c-y^f^ •<"<"''~v>'" ...-^ I. P. Gupta, S/o. Shri H. L. Gupta, aged about 65 years, Jabadapara, New Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.), ^^>'^^ <<p^ &1^-:-7":'''' VBRSUS '^-<rr RESPONDENTS ' :(1) Shri Vikas Sheel CONTEMNORS c. Secretaiy, Health Department, D.K.S. ^,1_, Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) (2) Dr. Kamalpreet 't- Director, Health Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT QF COURT ACT 1971 XI-HC—78 cTit^^T^rNT' '^T^T ^IT^T ^HPF ^ ^' -5-^ ^T'-TT^, 'W^W^^, T^^W^ „....^.^:.^^-(c:2..^/// ^i^- (-^rtg:^?) T^TW^^IS^ ^^feNt^ ^TO^ff ^ fe^t 7f^'^R '^ 4Rm ^?1^T 8B : Hon»bleShri Manindr^ 3.11.2011 Shri R.K, Gupta, coun^ Shri Pawan Kesharwai|d, Heard on admission. This petition has beeaji disobedience of fhe order d^ No.4707/04, whereby the u^ip was quashed and the matte^ consideration and decision after affording due opportun4ty filed by the petitioner aUeging wiUful ^ted 30th August, 2010 passed in W.P. ii^pugned order dated 5th October, 2006 was remitted to the State Govt. for re- jafresh stricUy in accordance wifh law to the petitioner ofbeing heard. sa$ie As Leamed counsel for passed by fhe Court was ^ dated 29.9.2010 before ti^< Annexure C-4 and the Secretary on 29.9.2010. representation was to be de4 when no decision was takenl as on 1st October, 2011, compUed with and the cas^ fhough fhe same does petitioner. It is submitted deliberate wifh an intention Mohan Shrivastava, J. el for fhe petitioner. i, counsel for fhe respondents. pie petitioner submits fhat the order tubniitted along with a representation Secretary of the Departoaient vide was received in the office of the per the order of the Court, fhe |;ided within a period of 4 months, but, [contempt petition was ffled and as late jLhe order passed by this Court was of the petitioner has been decided, correctiy decide the claim of the the delay in decision of fhe case was t)o Hout the order ofthe Court_ n4t th^t y^ -„ i '^sh 11 '7^[ ^I^SIcn'^, ^Tft^^ T^TRTy ^T^l'cRT f^N? ^ITW^T'^TW ^ ^ \.... ^m^lT9^Hf^ ^?T XT?W ('(^t3'®T<^7) -w^m -^f^ ^I^T z On fhe other hand, le^rned counsel for the respondents, referrtng to fhe averment mad some delay has been caused,i order of fhe Court. He submitsl after makiag inquiry, it was ^rqf^nh Tip^fl ^f fe(<?t ^R^K ^ 3ffTO ^^\ e ia fhe reply, submits that ffaough fhere was no iatention to tlout the that after fhe order of the Court was received ia the office ofthe Se^retary, the matter was taken-up and ^ound fhat fhe period, in respect of which the claim of fhe peti^ioner was requtred to be decided, exceeded 5 years and theref<| placed before the Cabtaet o\ submitted that because of thel foUowed ia the present case, d\ the matter was finally conside| passed on 1st October, 201^ submits thaf ia these circumst ^re, the matter was required to be f the Govt. of Chhattisgarh. It is procedure which was required to be elay occurred. He submits fhat after red by fhe Cabin.et, final orders were (Annexure R-l). Learned counsel Biices, as the matter was required to be placed before the Cabtaetj, which was beyond the control of respondeat, fhe delay was unjuitentional. He submits that for the period ofdelay, unconditional ^ipology is tendered. Taking iato consideratioj 1 fhe submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, cons|Ldering the averments made ia the retum., particularly that as ^ regard to period exceeding 5 y^ars, requuing fhe same to be placed before fhe Cabinet, the delay he matter related to decision with ia compliance of fhe order does not ^, appear to be iatentional. Thejrepresentation of the petitioner has been finally decided. By that ofder, out of a total period of 8 years, 9 ?.1^^T^Tfq—FS/140—2/20r S -1 ,SO,000. ^r:. XI-HC—78 "^ 'S^t^ -cTm ^ ^'Taveea -5-^ •?qTqT^i-q, •^^\W^£,T^1T^9T ^?T (^'^^) '^1 '^ ^, monfhs and 2 days, 90 daj^ leave and the remaining 31JOO without pay and also coun^ circumstances, I am not inc}ined The rule is therefore dS finaUy disposed of. It woul(|, take recourse to such remel law in case he is aggrieve4 (Annexure R-l). :^N^N'iTT ^TH^ ^ fe^t -^^P: i^ ^-^ 3.1^ s have been regularized as commuted days have been regiilarized as leave ^d for fhe purpose of pension. In these to proceed furfher ta the matter. Lscharged and fhe petition is accordingly however, be open for fhe petitioner to Ly as may be avaUable to him under the by fhe order dated 1st October, 2011 Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge