/^y%. M £•'&>.. ' ^ i ^ltei^ 1 "'"ss^^ l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS©AR!N.BILASPUR CONTEMPTCASE (Ci No;100/%010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS B.K. Kutkarni. S/o Late Shri Damodar KuSkarns, Aged about 57 years, Post Black Smith-il. R/o Behind Gupta Kirana Store. Akash Nagar, Jiagdalpur, District Basfar (C.G.) Versus 1 Mr. Bhupendra Kuiniar Shukla, Djvjsiona! Manager, C.S.D.C. (TranspQrt: DJvision), Near Shastri Chcwk, Raspur (C.G.) 2 Shri D.L. Barman, S/o Late Shri Pritamlal Barman, Incharge Manager, Jagdalpur Office of C.S.D.C. JaQdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) CONTEIVIPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE COMSTITUTIOM OF SMDSA ApDear@?ic©: Mr. Alok Dewangan, Counsel forthe petitioner Mr. Sameer Behar, Counsel for the respondents. ORALORDER (OS.10.2010) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. Heard. Pet'rtioner B.K. Kutkarnj has fited thjs petltion for injtiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents for wiSSful defau!t sn compSiance of ths order datsct 14 of January2010passed inW P(S). No.5755/2009 Thjs Court while disposing ofWP(S) No.5755/2009 passed the fo'Joy/inQ order on 14th of January 201 Q: "(5) tn resped of payment of salary for the period from 21-07-2003 to iVSarch 2004, Shri Behar further submjfs that the matter is under consSderation and the same shall be reteased as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the arrears of salary ofthe petStioneras contained in para 5 (quoted above) was not pald after expiry of the period of 8 weeks after passlng of the order dated 14th of January 2010, the petitionsr had to file this contempt petltion against the respondents \.^ ^ss^ ^:3:,.^ ^!} CONT61VIPT GASE (ONo. 100/2010 1 % shyna The respondents have filed thelr separate reply to the petition !n para 3 & 4 of the reply filed by respondent No 1. it has been contended that the order dated 14.01 2010 passed by thls Court was sent to the Divteional Manager C.I.D C-; Raipur The DJvjsional Manager by ite letter No 1475/SAM PRA/Stha/Jagad/2010 dated 2©05 201 Q Intlmated the petitloner that the cheque No880130 has been issued in favour of the petitioner and requested that the petitioner may come and receive it 'm person The copy ofthe tetter has been annexed as Annexure R-1/1 Thereafter. the petitjoner appeared on 0207.2010 and he receivedthe aforesald cheque, but due fro overwriting on that cheque. the said cheque could not be paid and a fresh cheque bearing No024087 dated 12072010 was jssued, which the petitioner received and executed receipt filed as Annexure R-1 /3. Leamed counsel for the respondents submlts that though there js some delay in complianoe of the orcter, but the delay occurred on account of processing of the case of the petjtioner for making the payment, as ,indfoated above The delay was not intentional; therefore. the same may be condoned and the rule issued agalnst the respondente may now be dlschgrged After going through the contents of the order and the reply filed by the respondents and that the petitjoner has already received the cheque of Rs30,796/- dated 12072010 and further that there does not appear to be intentional delay 'm making the payment to the petjtioner, 1 deem it appropriate to drop the proceedings of contempt at this stage Accordingly, the proceedings of cpntempt are dropped The rule issued agalnst the responctents stands discharged. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge