COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR GontemDt Case (0 No.54 of 2010 ^ ^ Dr. Shashi Bhushan Sao, S/o Late Shri Prabhuram Sao,aged about 51 years, Presentiy working as Medical Officer, Employee State insurance Corppration ESiC Hospital, Raipur (CG) R/o Shanti Nagar, Raipur (CG) Versiis . RESPONDENTS 1 Shri K.P.Singh.,. Secretary, Lahour Department, Govt. ofMadhya Pradesh, Valfabh Bhawan, Bhopai(M.P.) 2 Dr.D.K. Sodha. Director, Employees State Insurance Services Madhya Pradesh Nanda Nagar, fndore (M.P.) CONTESVIPT PETITION UNDERARTICLE215 OF THE CONSTiTUTSON OF INDIA \- Appearance:' • Mr. N.K-Vyas, Counse! forthe petitioner. (08.03.2010) SUNILKUIVEAR SINHA J.. ' Heard on admission. . . . Petitioner- Dr. ShashJ Bhushan Rao has fiied this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt agajnst the respondents for the aiieged default in compjlance ofthe order dated 9th of September 2008 passed in W.P.(S) No.5259/2007. This Court vi/hite disposing of the aforesaid writ petltiQn on 9th of September 2008, passed the foiiowlng order: ^.Ji .^ ContemDtCase (0 No.S4 of2010 "2) Since the service records of the petitioner are lying with the respondents No.1 & 2, the respondents No.3 & 4 cannot taken any decision on the issue invoived in the case. 3) Despite semce of notice, the respondent No.2 has chosen notto appear before the Court. Thus, in the llght of pending representation dated 19-09-2006 (Annexure P-15), it is ordered that the respondent No.2shal! consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance wjth law, on its own merits, within a period of slx weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4) In view of the foregoing, according to learned counsei for the petitioner, nothlng survives for adjudicatlon. 5) Accordingiy, the writ petitlon stands disposed of. 6) Consequently, pendlng applications, if any, aisostand disposed of." This order was modified by the order dated 15th of January 2009 passed in MCC (PR) No.3306/2008 and it was dlrected that in the third iine of para 3) of the order dated 9th of September 2008 "respondent No.2" is substltuted by "respondentNo.1". Mr. N.K. Vyas, iearned counse! appsaringon behalf of the petitloner submits that when respondent No.1 did not decide the representation ofthe petitloner, the petitioner had to flle this contempt petition. A perusai of various documents fiied aiong with the contempt petition wouid show that. there were many correspondence between the petitiQner and the concerned ^ Contempt Case (C) No.54 of 2010 respondent in reiatjon to the grievanee of the petitioner and ultimately, on 07.03.2009, the Director, Employees State insurance Services, indore, Madhya Pradesh has passed the order dated 07.03.2009 (Annexure C/6) and has granted certain reliefs to the petitioner. Lsarned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner submlts there were many reliefs in the representation referred to in the order dated 09th of September 2008, therefore, ail the reliefs were not granted to the petitioner and the said order, so far as the remaining reiiefs are concerned, is agalnst the interest of the petitjoner. Learned counsel submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this contempt petition with liberty to file another petition for the remaining reliefs not considered/granted by the concemed respondent and aiso to raise the grievance in reiation to the advance Increments, if the petitloner is not satjsfied wlth the order dated 07.03.2009 (Annexure C-6). Permission granted. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is disposed of, as withdrawn \¥ith the aforesaid Hberty granted in favour of the petitioner. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge shyna