II IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR «,., « _ (^. • ContemptCivil No.^5^ Of 2010 v^ PETITIONER : Smt. Abha Singh, aged about 44 years, W/o. Surendra y.^'"^Singh, presently working as Sfi '••.'iV ,l**'t. y'^t^. *^/-t-JLA^JL'1- ; ..?-:'^^-;1'"\.,<-Lecturer at Govt. Mishri Devi •^^"^C-^" Girls H.S. School, Pendra ^^ n.<^ ^^^•' 'L'^^' RESPONDENT Contemnor Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus S.N.Panda, District Education Officer District Bilaspur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. E' + ~-3-t l?J\ 'FSI. ^vvfws, ~ff=fivTs, Tsraray -G^^ O <-o .^^f /^ sn^i 1it°wC^3»i^[) sn^iqnfipfe WISflisn^qw Hon'bie Shri EVSanindra iViohan Bhrivastava ^rafepN •qiwff 4 f^igt T?^?R -%• 3tf°R snt?i Shri K.S. Pawar, counsel for th^ petitloner. Shri J.P.Shukia, counsel forth^ On the iast date of flearin^, responaent mat tne oraer or tne L;ourti and payabte to the petitioner, beln^ account. Time v/as granted to le^rned counsei for the petitioner to seek jnstructsons and to make definite statei roday, iearned counsei for th^ petitioner submfts ihaf though instructions have been sought from the peiitloner not respondmg and therefore, he has (10 instructions. in respor.se to ?ne comempt p^ as per tne caicuianons amvea at iransTerred to the account of tne petiti persons which inciucses the name of tl rscor^. aelay was not wii'itu! and rt was main submlned by iearned counsel for ths of otnsr cases also. Therefore, tne ^ , staiement was made on behaff of ihs has been compiisd with and th's amount due Rs.1,76,213/-, has bsen deposited in her inent. Ibysending registerad letter, the petitioner is tition, in tne reply niea &y ine responaents, tt has been categoricaiiy statedfln afnd^vit that the order passgd by the Court has been compiled with and the amount ^i'hich was due and payabie to the Fetjtloner by tne responaen;, ine sams nas oeen loner and a copy of pay bill aiong with other petitionsr as weil has a!so been piacsd on As far as the deiay part is conc^rned, !t has be-sn stated In the rspiy thaf the y causea aue to proceaures v;nicn invoivea ijixation ana caicuiafon OT tne amo|jnt payabie to the petiooner. !t was also betitioner that the exercise involved number 'me was consymsd without anv intentson to fioyt the order of the Couri. For thd delay caused for compjying wlth the order as'nwr, ira-iwira'—FS/,'40—2/2011—i,50,ooo. ~FS. •^Tai^R, ^=fl?CTS, fepTRiy ^-. GU)^(^1/-&.&T7//0 "^200 an^r'^R^'Cyfg^T) 311^1 Tl1?':fe '(Wi sd^i giiiN? •Rmwsfei 3n^i -°? 'w'iferqN 'Emgf ^ fySjf^ -S? 3(eTO 3'i^I 1 passec by the Court, ihe responde|it tenders uncondltionai apoiogy and it is assured to the Court that such conducjt would not be repeated. 'aklng into considerstion the s| and considering that the order ofthe (pourt has been compiied with snd also takin; into considerailon the cause. showri tendered, I am not inciined to proc^ed further In the matter. Rule is therefore oiscnargea. Before parting witn tne case, it| cautious in future in the matter of t'me] this conduct is repeated, serious view| uDmission of iearned counses for the parties ( for deiay as aiso unconditionai apoiogy is obser/ed that the rsspondent shall remain |iy compilancs of ths order of the Couri and 'f |of the matter may be taken. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge »ll(l.fl<lil-(l'-l(i^"ll?>1,ira'.TWTR—FS/!40—2/20II—1 ,50,000.