IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE fCIVIL) N0. ^~1 3/2011 SB PETCTIONER Rambaks Pal aged about-63 ^ years, S/o Late Shri. N. L (wo^ Pal - Retired Manager, ^^•ft^^C.c.) ) \ Special Programme Khddi, .^...—rT""- ,,^^a5^^ paNo.""—:: ,--?-&dbV^^SS ?^Si8H^^ ^'J A. •<»<»tt^ D3A@- 10 ^ VERSUS CONTEMNORS bistrict-Bilaspur (C.G.) and Incharge, Resham Kendra, Hardi Bazar, Korbo, R/o- bev Nagar (Ghuru) Tifra, bistrict-Bilaspur (C.6.) 1. Shri Nawal Singh Mandavi, Managing Director. Chhattisgarh Khadi Tatha 6ram Udyog Board, R-14, Anupam Nagar, District-Bilaspur (C6) 2. Shri. P. Ramesh Kumar Secretary, bepartment Of Khadi Tatha Gram Udyog Board, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, District-Raipur (CG) 3. Shri. S. K. Sharma Deputy birector, Chhattisgarh Khadi Tatha Gram Udyog Board, R-14, Anupam Nagar, bistrict-Raipur (C.6.) 4.5mt. &eeta bevi, beputy birector (Accounts), (Financial Advisor); Khadi Tatha 6ram Udyog Board, R-14, Anupam Nagar, bistrict-Raipur (C.G.) ?^^ -2.- CONTEMPT PETITEON U/ SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1971 REAb WITH ARTCCLE 215 OF THE CONSTCTUTION OF INDIA 78 3^r "^T f<^icf) HSTT 3^T^T 5r)^iqi <JTC| ^l^Krfq, yxn^^Ko, foldl'H^ ^^....Co...±......^^^^ '3TI^?T 'TT^T (lic<^<sl<1^) ^nw^ftn^TT^T SB : Hon>ble Shri Manindrdi Mohan Shrivastava, J, 21.10.2011 Shri Azad Siddiqui, co(insel for the petitioner. Leamed coiinsel for tll recovery order dated 27th 2010, the petitioner had pr^ which was allowed vide or<3 (S) No. 1149/10. The order j submits that the liberty recourse to Rule 65 of the | Rules, 1976, if so advised, basic principles of natur^l petitioner submits fhat ev^ been set aside, various the petitioner as his retira| show fhat the respondenjl cu-cumvent fhe order and p( Perasal of memo datfc that the petitioner was infojnned that the matter relating to ^( under ?rocess. Representaj tDi^t<n<fll 'RTR^Tf ^f 'fe^t Tf^T^R ^ ^tRw^TT^T |ie petitioner submits that against the [January, 2010 and 11th February, ^ferred writ petition before this Court, ^er dated 12th Januaiy, 2011 in W.P. |of recoveiy was quashed. He furfher was given to respondents to take [Chhattisgarh Civil Sersnces (Pension) |i accordance with law, after following justice. Leamed counsel for the m though the order of recovery has ai4ounts which are due and payable to dues, have not been released, which ts are attempting to overreach and 'oceedings of fhis Court. d 18.3.20111 (Annexure C-7) shows by the Dy. Director of the Board ilease of petitioner's provident fund is ion of the petitioner submitted on [__„„„ _/&[iI^@^S £^^s, XI-HC—78 w^r^Tf^te '<T^T 3TI^T 9CTN»' Praveen ^^ T<ll<4l(rl^, yxll^Ko, f®ldl-y^< HW<^r(b*1(ch •^ 200 W^T 'q^F (lic<^<sl<:^) ^<TTW^rf^T3n^T -z. 1.8.2011 furfher shows that| present Director of the Bosjrd amount and the amount pa^able by this Court earlier, fhe re petitioner. In view of fhe cbl<4l<n<flv1 'RT^ff ^f 'feT^ <f^^l< ^ ^w^^n^ |the petitioner had represented to fhe for release of his provident fund iinder insurance scheme. Once the order ofrecolyery has been set aside, unless fhere is an order of recoveiy pass^d in accordance with law, as directed spondents are under an obligaUon to release ftie pensionary aino^int, which should not be wifhheld on the pretext that certain ^mount 1s recoverable against fhe inclined to issue notice to rcjspondents at this stage. However, ifit is found that the petitioner^s pensionary amounts have not been released and withheld for Court woiild be constrained jthe reason relating to recovery, this |to initiate proceedtng. The petitioner is pensionary benefits are not month from fhe date ofrecej With the aforesaid disposed of. grai|ited memo dated 18.3.2011, I am not liberty to revive the petition, if jreleased to him wifhm a period of one [pt of copy of this order. |)bservations, fhe petition is finally Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge