s^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR Contempt Case fCl No. 5 S> of 2011 PETITIONER ^ ^ .\ ./•- ,•3^' ^c^ ~^^y RESPONDENTS CONTEMNORS Rajkumar Sidar,-aged about 38 years, S/o. Shri Heera Lal Sidar, R/o. Dakshin Chakradhar Kelo Vihar Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil and Distfict Raigarh (C.G.), VERSUS aii»d rtiiouT n^ ajed otwtt S~S~ /ffaa^ :1. Shri A.K. AgraWal^Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) lr^ti »t)6u^^2. ^ew* 2. Shri Kanhaiya Singh,"^ Upper Oivision Clerk, Office of the Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ?l8M^ ^ V'^ CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / / ^ ll ..!/ sn^i^r h-i'M sn^ ?b^lt=b yi?cl 'ysi -^MM^, ^w^, hv^wy, c. ..Qc^.-....&p.^.[£^^ f)ra?iTW*iN;' 3ii^['STeiwgft^ SB : Hon'bie Shri manindra Moh^rLShriyastava. J. 17-Q2-2011 Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, dounsei for the petitioner. Heard on aamission. li is submitted that vide No.3808/07, this Court ailowed th ()rder dated 12/1/10 passed in W.P.(S) 1 petitioner, quashing the proceedings of DPC dated 24/4/07 and consequerltial order dated 26/4/07, so far it reiates to respondent No.8 therein. This Coi|jrt directed that the concerned respondent and the Detitioner shaii be consid^red for Dromotion to the post of Assistant Grade lil as on 24/4/07 as the grobnd shown for reiection of candidature for promotion that the petitioner has n|ot obtained prior permission for appearing in the Higher Secondary Schooi C^rtificate Examlnaiion, is factuaily incprrect. This Court heid that the petlnon! benents fiowina from the order. submission or learned courl petitioner. His submission Is that aiso. •*l<<!d'ii1-f -qFRff •?fS^6 tRRZK ^ SffitTlT SII^TT !F shaii be entitied to all conseauentiai sei for the petitioner is that thereaner the DPC was consfituted and in comttiiance of the order passed by this Court, recommended consequentiai benefits vi?.e.f 24/4/07. Thereaner. the Coiiector passed an order on 7/6710 (Anne)(ure P/4) whereby the petitioner has been jranted promotion w.e.f. 26/4/07 And notional fixation of pay on the higher pay scaie has aiso been done fron|i that day. However, by appiying principle of ;no work no pay, the actual arr^ars have not been paid. Learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that ttfiis amounts to wiiiful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, in so f^r as non-payment of actual arrears to the in view of the order of this Court that the petitioner shal! be entitled to ali coijisequentiai benefits fiowing from the order, it ts-necessarilv inciuded that the p^titioner would be entitied for actuai arrears [•q^tfe-q ^ C-22 an^i qr R;ii.'* 3i)i?r Sb<4it=b •af^T ^' •> -^. Deepir ^ST "LII'llld<Lt, S»ti1'MilS, (alCII'My *<i*«'rr8i-qrai (^jt. d^<_(?)>A-0/ S'Qfll ^......^..^..................^.^ 200 3D^T ?R'IW^lft?T -s In the order dated 12/1/10 airectea ail consequennal Denerits| the petitioner. The petitioner was of recommendation, the petltioner fl The order shows that the petitlonei on the higher pay scaie. Ttife sH promotion from an eariier- date al< pay. However, appiying the princ] arrears have not been given to th| has taken a view of appiying the p( sucn cases, wniie granting consec] not admissible. Whether such deci adjudlcation. However, considerirl promotion from 26/4/07 along witll from that dav and aiso senioritv, i respondent authoritv has acted ir| uourt. Tnerefore, 1 am not However, it shai! be open for th^ validity of fne order by which ac) aeniea to tne petitioner. With the aforesaid observatil '*1''<[<'|41'1 TWTCff'? 'fS^t <(«]«^K ^aiPaiTan^t bassed in VV.P.(S) No.3808/07, this Court flowing from the order to be extended to tonsiderea ror promotion ana on tne basis Nias been granted promotlon w.e.f. 26/4/07. j's pav scaie has aiso been fixed notionaiiv srfows that the petitioner has been granted ting with seniority ana' notional nxation of Ipie of 'no work no pav', beneflts of actual i^ petitioner. it appears that the authority tincipie of !no work no pav though,even in luential benefits, actual arrears of pay are jsion is right or wroncs, would be a matter of |g mat tne petiuoner nas Deen grante< notionai nxation on the nsgner pay scale |t is difficuit for thls Court to hoid that the willful disobedience of the order of this nciin^a to inmate anv contempt oroceeainas. petitioner to assail the correctness and tual benefit of arrears of pay have been bns, the petltion is finaiiv disposed off. Sd/- . ^ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [^^fe-q ^