^•' w INTHEHIGHCOUi^S:^3S^<^S^BIlSsPUR rC.G.( ^ C0%_ CONT^MPT CASE N07 ^^ ^7 /2oii®n«l»BencV PETITIONERS \\ RESPONDENT 1. Sunil Kumar Patel S/o Shyam Sunder Patel Aged-about 52 years, Lecturer, (Biology) Govt. girls higher secondary school/ Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] 2. Shuklamaber Prasad Patel S/o Janhavi Patel Aged-about 56 years, Upper division teacher Govt. middle school, Pusalda, block-Pussoure, Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] 3.1ilodhan Lal Patel S/o Tejram Patel, ^ aged-about 50 years, lecturer (English) govt. high school, Gorra, Block- Pussore, Distt-Raigarh [C.G.] VERSUS K.R.Pisda, Director, public insti^iction Raipur [C.G.] CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMFT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR NON COMPLINACE OF THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2010 PASSED INWRIT PETITION (S)NO. 1661/2005 FANNEXURE C/l\ The above named petitioners most humbly and respectfully beg to submit as under: -4- 3^1 ^FT t^F TOT W^T'sTOTSF r-^r' 1 rr Deepii cS) *<l*1(f(l ^»;HI^» '3^ T^NI<rl'4, ^tn^^Ko, f«l<r11'M^< . ^t- a^ ^ (<')\^' ^W ?i ^^....^.-...........................^.^..........^^^^ W^T TR^ ( ^c<i^<^T) ^TTW^feT3T?^?T SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Vohadi Shrivastava. J. 01-09-2011 Shri D.R. Patei, counsel fortt This contempt petition has disobedience of order dated 19/( No.1661/05. Learned counsel for the p' disposed off giving liberty to the subsisting, before the appropriate ai He submits that during the petjtioners were promoted in the y from the date they are entitled, for which tiil date has remained pendii Court. appiication ofthe petitioners for grai) Taking into consideration t^ Tribunal in the year 1997 and evf hearing i.e. 19/7/2010, the learned| instructions. The writ petition was cji any subsisting, if the petitioners ar^ of the petitioners is to fsle writ petiti petition is misconceived and is th< stated above. °M^f<n^1i tTO^f ^ fs^ T(^$R ^3TRfq3T^T |e petitioners. |been filed by the petitioners aiieging wilifui P/2010 (Annexure C/1) passed in W.P.(S) ^titioners submits that the writ petition was t?etitioners to ventiiate their grievance, if any [jithority or before this Court. pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the par 2008, but they were not granted seniority |which, representation was made on 26/10/10 (ig, which amounts to flouting the order of the This Court did not issue an|y direction to the respondent to consider the it of seniority from the date ciaimed by them. lat the original appiication was filed in the m on the date, the matter was taken up for counsei for the petitioner pleaded no specific isposed off with iiberty to ventiiate grievance, if aggrieved on accountof inaction, the remedy ^n or take some other remedy. The contempt refore dismissed, however with the liberty as Sd/- Manmdra Mohan Shrivastava Judge