••-.J -^ &-3P?3 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C^ye- CONTEMPT PeTmOlsj ^C) N0. ^55 /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS .\\v Premlal Sarthi, S/o. Late Bhagirathi Sarthi, aged about 49 years, Vaccinator, Animal Hospital, Tamnar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS :1 Shri D.S. Mishra Secretary, Department of Veterinary, State of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) .^\y" .^ ^^>" ^<y,'<"A\ ^•"' ^ ~ .^'*' ^vl ^ ^Si< ^y^- .•-'" ? 2. Dr. S.K. Pandey Director, Veterinary Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) Services, / 3. Dr. K, K^ Dhruwa Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Dr. S.D. Dwivedi Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION U/A 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 Q^LHE CONTEMPTS OF COURTSACT ^ f WH<fIT(h*l|cb 75cT ^l^l^^, ^ti1<H<i<o, f®i<ni'y*j,< — ..C^:.;(!^.c:..0...1^c.:^ii^// 'CT^ 200 ^TT^r TT^F (li?^<s<<^) ^TI^T ^T [^-liob ?f8[T STT^TsCTToF ^, ^TTW^ftU ^?T SB : HQn'ble Snri Manindra Mohan 1Q-Q8°2Q11 Shri A.KPrasad, counsei for|the petitioner. Heard. This petition has been disobedience of order dated 19/1/2p1 1 passed in VV.P.(S) No.1326/09. Learned counsei for the pet| the petitioner was allowed. it wa^ Vaccinator and the petitioner v^ vaccinator from the date he was <j on representation being made to tl1 copy of memo dated 6/4/201 1 of t| he was also informed vide rnemd services that the State has obt^ <=M<i?<n<flri 1WT^ff ^* fe^t <F3t<^i< iT3tRW37T^?T ^hnvastava, J. iled by the petitioner alleging willful tioner submitted that the petition filed by heid that the petitioner continued to be ras declared entitied to pay scale of enied the same tiil date. He submits that e respondent authorities, he has received ie office of Joint Director, Veterinary and dated 21/3/2011 of Director, Veterinary ined opinion and appeat is being filed against the order passed on 19/1/2p1 1. From the documents which <^aye placed on record, it appears that the respondents have sought to exetcise their right of appeai against order passed on 19/1/2011 . The order | the order within a period of six we^ |required the respondents to compiy with |ks. Therefore, merely because an appeai is proposed to be fiied, the compli^nce of the order ought not to be deferred. Unless there is an interim order stjaying effect and operation of order dated 19/1/2011, the respondents are o|3iiged under the iaw to comply with the order of the Court. f" "\' T ^^^^-'s. '^ ^gy% '^ XI-HC—78 ^T*tCtT ^l*1|ch ^ST "^NKri'M, ^Tll-H^Ko, f®l<ni'Mll,< ...6^.:...<^..^..(D./^.i3^// / •^200 W^T Tra^' (<ic<?j<si<\^) ^^ 'SFT R;-ii<=h ^T^TT ^^\ $»i^icb Deepti ^<TTW^f^T 3TI^T ^- Considering the aforesaid cj inclined to issue notice to the of this order before respondent complied with within a month fronji the petitioner wili be entitled to rev| The petition is accordingly rest>ondents, Nb jrcumstances, though at present, i am not >, the petitioner may piace a copy ).2. In case, the order of the Court is not the date of receipt of copy of this order, jve this petition. fipaily disposed off. sdL^nv^va raMo^n: ^anittdra^^e cM^I<n<i1i "^FTo^ ^f 'feTst <pst<^j< ir 3tf?pT 3:n^r