1 p'' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMFTCASE (C) N0.?t^" /2010 y'~ (Arising out of oiderdt 5.12.2008, yasoedin W.P. (S). No. 6711/2008 by Honble jLBdce ShriDhirendiaMishiaJ.) o ^..-^ .....-^^^ „ ^.:«-::.:^^l- '^"" ^ w^^,, .^" w^ ^ysi^ ^ *, ^Ti ..^€: ^'^^ s^^..,e-^'s" Applicants j ^Rambharosh Gond S/0 Jefriumm Age 40 years R/o Village Mohbandha, P.0. Navadih (Lormi) Distt-Bilaspur(CG). Aazoo Ram S/o shri sahdev sin^i Age 60 years R/o Village Mohbandha, P.0. NavadJh (Loimi) Distt- Bilaspur (CG) . VERSUS 1. Shri S.D. Badgainya Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur [CG] 2- Shri Koushlendia Singh, Secretary Forest Deportment State of Chhatdsgaih, Mantralaya, Raipur[CG CONTEMPE PETITION UNDER SECTION"12 OF TI1E CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, READ WITH ARTICCE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA Non-applicants (Contemnors) ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BIIASPUR S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN^HRJWASTAVA, J. PETITIONBRS Contempt Case (Cl No. 15772010 Rainbharosh Gond & another RESPONDENTS Versus Shri S.D. Badgainya and another Contesnpt Petition u/S 12 ofthe Coateinpt ofCourts Act r/w Article 215ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearance: Shri Ashok Vaishnav, counsel for fhe petitloners. Shri Y.S. Thakur^ counsel for respondent No. 1, ORALORDER (Passedon25.2.2011) Heard. 2. Leained counsel for the petitioner submitted fhat fhis Court, vide its order dated 5.12.2008 passed m W.P. (S) No.6711/08, disposed of the petition with Uberty to the peUtioners to make representation for regularization of their services in fhe light of Circular dated 5.3.2008 and on receipt of such representation, the competent authorily ofthe respondents was directed to decide the same within a penod of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted \ that the respondents, though, has passed an order on 2.2.2011 ^^^-^, ^^.A. ^ ^—^ H ^ I ^J.^ -2- ^v regularizing the services ofthe petitioners, this was done alter the contempt petition was filed by the petitioners. He further submits that though fhe Court had directed fhe matter to be decided within a period of 6 weeks from fhe date of representation, the respondents did not take appropriate steps to expedite the matter and after a long delay, the order of regularization has been passed. He further submits that fhe explanation for delay stated in fhe affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 is not sulllcient and does not justify such a long delay in compliance of fhe order of fhe Court. The ofher submission ofleamed counsel for fhe petitioners is that though ftie order of regularization has been passed, the full benefits of regularization has not been extended to the petitioners and according to hun the petitioners are entitied to grant of regular appointiiient firom their initial date of appointnient as daily wage employee witli aU benefits of salary, pay-scale etc. 3. On the other hand leamed counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that this Court directed consideration of representation of fhe petitioners in the Ught of Circular dated 5.3.2008 by the competent authority ofthe respondents. He submits that after fhe order was passed by fhis Court, the respondent No. 1 took up the matter for consideration and the matter was submitted before the Conservator ofForest, Bilaspur on 28. 1.2009 (Annexure R-2) with the recommendation of respondent No.l that the petitioners are found fit for regularization. He submits that even though ^\ ^. 1 •^•j] -3- respondent No.l hade made a representation in favour of fhe petitioners within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of representation, fhe matter remained pending in fhe office of Conservator of Forest and after reminders given by respondent No. 1 that the case of fhe petitioner is required to be decided in compliance ofthe order passed by this Court, due sanctions were granted and finally the order of regular appointment has been issued on 2.2.2011. He submits that delay is not attributable to any of the action on the part of respondent No. 1 and as fhe matter was required to be coordinated wifli higher authorities before an order could be passed, fhe delay has occiirred, which is un-intentional. He submits fhat fhere was no intention of wUlftil disobedience of fhe order as the respondent No.l had sdready made a recommendation for regularization and the matter was submitted before fhe Conservator of Forest on 28h January, 2009 itself. 4. Taldng into consideration fhe submission made by leamed counsel for fhe parties, considering the explanation given by respondent No. 1 as also taking mto consideration fhe fact that respondent No. 1 had made recommendation for regularization and ftie matter was sent to the Conseryator of Forest for approval vide memo dated 28th January, 2009 (Annexure R-2) and thereatter reminders were given on 2.3.2009, 31.3.2009, 22.7.2009, 13.12.2010 and on 20.1.2011, to fhe office of Conservator of Forest, I am unable to accept ttie submission that -4- ^ M respondent No. 1 has committed willful disobedience of the order of the Coiirt. It appears that fhe respondent No. 1 made his own recommendations for grant of regularization, but fhe matter remained pending for long time in the office of Conservator of Forest and even after several reminders given by respondent No. 1, the Conservator of Forest did not grant his sanction for a long time. However, as the petitioner has not impleaded tiie concemed Conservator of Forest as party, therefore, in fhis contempt petltion,no action can be taken against concemed Conservator of Forest. In so far as respondent No. 1 is concemed, I do not find that he has committed contempt of fhe order passed by this CoUTt. 5. The rule is accordingly discharged and fhe petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- IManindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge .aveen