IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contempt Case (C) No.^^/2010 (W.P.(S) N0. 7449/2009 decided on 17.12.09) APPLICANTS: tWi-'' y" ..« ;^p'..ll'1" ^- ^f& -'fi'ft •'''. .-'a-1 'w*' . . <->»"! ;^-r RESPONDENTS: (CONTEMNORS) ^- 1. Baninali Prasad Sidar S/o Tiloram Sidar, aged about 61 \ I/?. A.^^?^ years, Government Higher 0.5.^•^^.'{(-T" Secondary School, Mahapali, Raigarh (CG). 2. Bhawani Shanker Behra S/o Dharnidhar Behra, aged about 61 years, Upper Division Teacher, Government High School Dhourabhata, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG). 3. Narendra Kumar Sav S/o Tanuram Sav, aged about 55 years, Upper Division Teacher, Government High School Dhourabhata, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG). 4. Shivcharan Naik S/o Ghasiyaram Naik, aged about 48 years, upper division teacher, Govemment High School Dhourabhata, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG). 5. Dharain Singh Rathiya S/o Gosai Rain, Assistant Teacher, aged about 52 years, Primary School Amgaon, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG). Versus L. Shri R.P. Mandal, Secretary, School Educatioh Department, Chhattisgarh, Mantralay at D.K.8. Bhawan , Raipur (CG). ;. Shri Nand Kumar the then Secretary, School Education Department, Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Ra43ur(CG^. CONTEMFT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT tfcu^--*"' ^-a WI[<fflt'?TaCTR; TST '^aiq|<v)4. 'g'i;Tl.Tp-^ fsRTCfy ^^^..o^^l^J.^^^ , 701 Sf^fi 'vsv C^ty^i;) •renwgitg 3iiin SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Moha 09-11-2011 Shri Rakesh Anthony, counse Shri Sumit Verma, counsel fo| Heard. This contempt petition has willful disobedience of order dated W.P.(S)No.7449of2009. |1 for the applicants. respondentNo.1. t}een filed by the applicants alleging 117-12-2009 passed by this Court in Learned counsel for the appl| passed by this Court has been unexplained delay in complying submitted that the order was pasj applications are made by individualj repatriation to the parent departme^it, accordance with law and appropri^te period of six weeks from the datfifi submitted that after the order wasl large number of similarly situatep applications before the District and the District Education Officfer forwarded the case of the applican) case of similariy situated teachers] number to the respondent No.1. It i^ thereafter, sat overthe matter for ^ came to know that an order has befer informing the applicants that their 5BTqfeTOt;T ^iTTRft' ii fS'3 ?iSr":I? •^- .'KfWi 3<1^! fiShrivastava, J. |cants submits that though, the order cjsmplied with, there has been long Wn the order of the Court. It is ^ed on 17-12-2009 directing that if fmembers to consider their cases for t, the same shall be considered in order shall be passed within a •of receipt of the applications. It is passed, the applicants as well as employees had submitted their Officer through proper channel ;r vide memo dated 09-02-2010 |s and their applications as also the along with their applications, 81 in submitted that the respondent No.1, long time and the applicants finally i^n passed as late as on 03-12-2010 1'epresentations have been rejected. Edudation OTB'ift !i»i«iiii»llriiT,(Wff?m—VS/14,0—2/2011—1,50,000. r .,.-CCT^. /'y!£*- '^ i g ^^ggiSji g '1^:?'--{-'^a st^vv fei^ wnsiii^gTqR; -3-5i( •SSKRTO, ^T!TPTC, t^rray 7 fil •W?) •Z-- He submits that in this manner, th^re was delay in compliance of the order of the Court. On the other hand, learned cij)unsel for respondent No.1, referring to the averments made in the repl^ has taken all possible steps to conjiply with the order of the Court. He submits that the respondent No. Education Departmenton 01-07-201i was not brought to his notice and [1 joined as a Secretary, School |0 and the order passed by the Court |ie came to know for the first time, when he received notice in Contemtit Case (Civil) No.241 of 2010, and as soon as, he came to know abo expedite the matter and finally, repr^sentations have been decided vide orderdated 03-12-2010. It is also were forwarded by the District Edu 02-2010 along with applications as Tamnar sent infomnation regarding totality of the circumstances, no casi against respondent No.1 is made ou Notices were issued by this and reply has been filed, wherein it No.1 was posted as Secretary of tll BirafeRh WFT^ •'f'fsv, tfsr^R ^s stRp'i w^m , submits that the respondent No.1 t the Court order, he took steps to |submitted that the representations tation Officer vidememo dated 09- |many as of 81 employees seeking their repatriation to the School Ecjucation Department. On that date itself, another memo was issued l^ the State Government on 09-02- 2010, regarding general policy cjf repatriation and the applicants submitted fresh application stating ttfatthey arewilling to be absorbed in the Tribal Department, on 08-03-2p10. The Block Education Officer, ption given by the applicants to the District Education Officer on 02-12-2010. It is submitted that in the ^ for initiating contempt proceedings |Court to the respondentNo.1 only (las been stated that the respondent !e School Education Department on i-.--^ wiwSn ^tvgswRRT, (Timi?na—l's/140—2/2011—1 ,so,ooo. ii!'l'i M.:.".' ^^^S'SS^^^ si^'n ^?i fSfnqT WKaii^rSiqR; Tumane FS[ -"[jiqRTq, •g-TfiTpTC, •ferciy 201 Sf^ vy.'ee C^qf^^i) —7 01-07-2010 and he was not havinib knowledge about the Court order until receipt of contempt notice. Ttje representations of the applicants have been rejected on 03-12-2010. respondent No.1 took steps to representations decided. The applii In the reply, it has beenstated the ^xpedite the matter and get the (;ants are also changed their option Education Officer along with thei exercise required to be undertaken, by the applicants on 08-03-2010, th inclined to issue notice to respoi therefore discharged. Accordingly, the petition is fin^lly disposed off. iBrafeTOtq COTHS i; fgtH .Tiss|CTi< ^K 3;Rp-i SD^I on 08-03-2010. In the conspectus ofjfacts and circumstances ofthe case floating on the surface, in the opinio|i of this Court, no case for contempt is said to have been made out again|st the respondent No.1. It appears that the applicatitins were forwarded by the District Education Officer along with meifio dated 09-02-2010 to the then Secretary in the Government. Tholugh, he has been impleaded as a party, this Couri: has not so far iss|ued notice to the respondent No.2. However, after going through the m|aterial placed on record, particularly the fact that memo dated 09-02-2]010 was forwarded by the District applications of as many as 81 employees and taking into consid^ation the nature and magnitude of |intervened by thefresh option given [lugh there has been delay, 1 am not ^dent No.2 at this stage. Rule is Sd/- Manlndra Mohan Shrivastava Judge „ _„_ i___. m«TBt-i^Svywsv, irawna—ts/140—2/2011—l,so.ooo.