[4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (C) N0. \^ / 2011 tlp^le Q^'RC APPLICANT PETITIONER M^ /^- y\ <y /^ / ^ .^ ..^ ^•-•^ <y NON- APPLICANTS RESPONDENT Ramesh Rotkar, aged about 70 years, son of Shri R.S. Rotkar, Retired Probationary Officer, R/o. C-10, Rohinipura, Goal Chowk, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), Present Address Aditya Nagar, Durg (C.G.). VERSUS Alok Awasthi, aged about 45 years, son of now known to the petitioner, Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.), K.D.P. Rao, aged about 45 years, son of not known to the petitioner, Secretary, Panchayat and Scoial Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.), CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF TH.E CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READJ^ITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF_COURTS^ACT FOR INITIATING OF ^ \\ CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT > !) FOR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED ^•J 14-06-2010, PASSED IN W.P.(S) N0.3057/2005^ XI-HC—78 ^T^T^FT^N?' '<TSTT ^^ Sh^i<^ Tumane -=p *<l*1<fT Wlict) 'S^ ^WW^, ^-^Wi^, f^v}W^{ . (Sv^^p^c^- \^/^1^ ^^....^.....................^..:........;..-^ ^^ ^n^T TT^T (^cii^^r) ^<HW^^T37T^T SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan IShrivastava. J. 26-09-2011 CM<4?^i<i)i iH^a>f ^ f^Ss <f<»l4^l< ^'^fOT^i!^T Siddiqui, Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel|for the petitioner. Shri Abhtehek Sinha, counsel fl3r respondent No.2. Heard. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties jointty submitted that vide order dated 30-08-2011, arrearsito the extent of 50% of the difference of pay of the post of Superintender|t and Probationary Officer has been released and also deposit©dRs. 73,4 Learned counsel for the re^pondent No.2 submitted that after dismissal of writ appeal, the matter With the aforesaid observatiorl 9/- in the petitioner's account. relating to fb<ation of pension of the petittoner, is already in process ar^d shall be deckled expeditiously in compliance ofthe order passed by thjs Court in the writ petition. In that view ofthe matter, 1 arli not inclined to proceed further in the matter. Rule is therefore discharge(|. However, in case, the order of the Court is not complied with, within a r^asonable period, the petitioner woufd be at liberty to revive the petition. the petition is finalty disposed off. Sd/- MamndraM«banShrivastava Judge v