^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR c^^ CONTEMPT CASE (C) N0. [^^ /2010 (Arisingoutofoiderdt 24.6.2009, passedinW.P.(S). No. 2207/2009 by Honble JiMice Shri Satish K. Agnihotri) Applicant ^\^-** ^^LalJi Gond s/°Late Chandia Singh -<^^'^vy)^?W?" A§e-45years I^oVillageBhartpur ^^--" . ^a^ "^^A.y7 Tflh- Tnnni Distt-Ril <SSa?&^ '^•fi &'?.,- ls^-?."^. ^^ Tah- Lonni Distt-Bilaspur(CG). Non-applicants (Contemnors) VERSUS 1. Shd S.D. Badgainya Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur [CG] 2- Shi Koushlendiu Singh, Secretery Forest Department State of Chhatdsgaih,Manta^laya,Raipur[CG CONTEMPE PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMFT OF COURTS ACT, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ')L^. The applicant, named atove respectiEuUy suhnits asunder:- 4/ 6 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B.: HON»BLESHRI MAmNDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. CpiitemptCase(C) N0.158/2010 PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS Lalji Gond Versus Shri S.D. Badgainya and another Contempt Petition u/S 12 of the Contempt pf Cpyrts Act r/w Article 215 ofthe Constitutioa ofludia Appearance: Shri Ashok Vaishnav, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, counsel for respondent No. 1. blBNB^ ORAL ORDBR (Passed on 25.2.2011) Heard. 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Coi-ut, vide .,^ its order dated 24th June, 2009 passed in W.P. (S) No.2207/09, disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to make representation for regularization of his services in the Ught of Ctrcular dated 5.3.2008 and the counsel for respondents stated that in the event of such representation, the same will be considered and decided in accordance witli law, on its own merits, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the - z- representation. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner submitted fhat the respondents, though, has passed an order on 2.2.2011 regularizmg fhe services of the petitioner, fhis was done after fhe contempt peUtion was filed by fhe petitioner. He further submits that though the matter was reqiiired to be decided by fhe respondent-authority within a period of 6 weeks from ttie date of representation, fhe 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 the explanation for delay stated in the affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 is not sufficient and does not justify such a long delay in compliance of the order of fhe Court. The ofher submission of leamed counsel for the petitioner is fhat though the order of regularization has been passed, the full benefits of regularization has not been extended to the petitioner and according to him the petitioner is entitled to grant of regular appointment from his initial date of appointment as daily wage employee wifh all benefits of salaiy, pay-scale etc. 3. On the other hand, leamed counsel for respondent No.l submitted that after the order was passed by this Court, the respondent No.l took up the matter for consideration and the matter was submitted before the Conservator of Forest, BUaspur on 28.8.2009 (Annexure R-2) wifh the recommendation of respondent No. 1 that the petitioner is foimd fit for regularization. He submits that even though respondent No. 1 hade made a ^^^•:?"^^, ^s:;s\ 1!^ ^^•r.^.^^y' •V.. -'^ v^ representation in favour of the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of representation, fhe matter remained penduig in fhe ofiice of Conseryator of Forest. Finally, due sanctions were granted aad ttie order of regular appointment has been issued on 2.2.2011 in favour of the petitioner. He submits that delay is not attributable to any of the action on the part of respondent No. 1 and as the matter was required to be coordinated with hlgher authorities before an order could be passed, the delay has occurred, which is un-intentional. He submits that fhere was no intention of wUIful disobedience of fhe order as the respondent No. 1 had already made a recommendation for regularization and fhe matter was submitted before the Conservator ofForest on 28.8.2009 itself. 4. Taking into consideration ftie submission made by leamed counsel for the parties, considering fhe explanation given by respondent No.l as also taking into consideration fhe fact fhat respondent No.l had made recommendaUon for regularization and the matter was sent to fhe Conservator ofForest for approyal vide memo dated 28.8.2009 (Annexure R-2), I am unable to accept the submission that respondent No.l has committed willful disobedience of the order of the Court. It appears fhat tihe respondent No.l made his own recommendations for grant of regularization, but the matter remained pending for long time in the office of Conservator of Forest. However, as the petitioner has not impleaded fhe concemed Conservator of Forest as party, .^^^^\ ^•^ ^"^ 1 m^'% %. /f Praveen ^ - ^ <Y therefore, in this contempt ^etition, no action can be taken against concemed Conservator of Forest. In so far as respondent No. 1 is concemed, I do not fmd fhat he has committed contempt of the order passed by ttiis Court. 5. The rule is accordingly discharged and fhe petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- IVIanindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge