HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (Cl No. 46/2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS |»rrnNiii» Chandrabhan Prasad Gupta, aged about 34 years, s/o Dhanushdhari Prasad Gupta, R/o Guturama Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G). Vs. 1 Shri S. Minj, Secretary, Panchayat Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G). 2. Shri Dhananjay Dewangan, s/o Shri M.C. Dewangan, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Sarguja, DistrictSarguja (C.G). 3. Shri Roop Kumar Tiwari, Chief Executive Officer, Jahpad Panchayat Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 READ^WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Prateek Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (25.02.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, Heard. Petitioner Chandrabhan Prasad Gupta has filed this petition for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for the alleged default in compliance ofthe order dated 24.09.2009 passed in W.P(S).No.5593/2009. This Court while issuing the rule against the respondents passed the following order on 24.09.2009. "Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not submitted any forged document. Even on enquiry, it has been found that the documents submitted by the petitioner are not forged. Despite that, the respondent authorities have adopted a very unusual method of asking for a consent letter from the employees stating that the employee has filed forged documents, but no FIR may be lodged. Contempt Case CC). N0. 46/2010 In default, the employee may be liable to be dismissed from service. Issue notice to the respondents, in accordance with rules. In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner." Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent/authorities are not giving salary to the petitioner which amounts to violation of the order dated 24.9.2009. Learned counsel, however, is not able to demonstrate as to why the salaiy of the petitioner is not being paid to him. There may be many reasons for non-payment of the salaiy to an employee by the employer as the payment of salary is subject to the law relating to it. We note that the aforesaid interim order was passed by this court in light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not submitted any forged document for appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi and even on enquiry it was found that the documents submitted by the petitioner were not forged. When the counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite that, the respondent authorities have adopted a method ofpressuring the petitioner and it was also expressed that the First Information Report may also be lodged. It is in that context, the order dated 24.09.2009 was passed and it was directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. In the aforesaid background of the facts, if the grievance of the petitioner is that the salary is not being paid by the authorities, no proceedings can be drawn against the authorities taking it to be violation of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any good ground to proceed in the matter of contempt; against the respondents. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao