HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Contempt Petition No. 88 of 2008 APPLICANTS PETITIONERS NON-APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS ^c J Budh Dev Sidar, son of Kunia Ram, aged about 38 years, working as Cook R/o Jashpur, Tahsil Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Lal Sai Ram son of Late Chotan Ram aged 48 years, working as Cook R/o. Bankitali Tahsil and Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Chhatramohan Yadav, aged about 32 years,son pf Asharu Ram Yadav, working as Chowkidar, R/o. Baturakachar, Tahsil Patthalgaon Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Raghunath Ram son of Late Govindram aged about 40 years, working as Waterman R/o. Tatkela Tahsil (Pirai) Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Dalpati Ram Bhagat son of late Bharmuram Bhagat aged about 44 years, working as Cook R/o. Tatidand, Tahsil Bagicha Distt. Jashpur(C.G.) Vs. Shri M.K. Raut, Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Shri Durgesh Mishra, Collector (Aadim Jati Kalyan Branch Jashpur, Tehsil and Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) at present posted at Ambikapur Shri Bhupendra Kumar Rajput, Assistant Commissipner, Deptt of Tribal Welfare, Jashpur Distt.Jashpur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDERSECTION12 OF THE CONTEMPTOF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA Appearance: Mr. Rahul Jha & Mr. Vinod Chouhan.Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the respondents. ^ Contempt PefitionNo. 88 of2008 ORALORDER (02.12.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, Heard. The petitioners have filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents for the alleged hbn- compliance ofthe order dated 7th of May, 2007 passed in W.P.(S) No 2785/2007. By the aforesaid order passed ih W.P.(S)No. 2785/2007, the impugned orderunderchallege in the writ petition was quashed and the petitioners were held entitled to regular pay scales from the date the same had been withdrawn by the impugned order. Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argues that since no payments were made as per entitlement heldinthe order dated 7 of May, 2007, therefore, the petitioners had to filethiscontemptpetition. i Mr. Vinay Pandey, learnedcounsel appearing on behalfof the respondents, submits that after passing of the order by this Court in the writpetition, respondent No.3 wrote memo to the Director Tribal Welfare Deptt., Raipur, whereby it was informed that Rs.1,56,43,948/- would be required for making payments to the petitioners and similarly placed other writ petitioners in whose favour the orders were passed. He further submits that the same was done as sanctioned was required from the Goyernment to makesuch payment. He also submits that thereafter some allotment was received andRs.81.55 lakhs have been disbursed in favour of theconcerned employees includingthe petitioners proportionately and according to the affidavit filed by the concerned Secretary, balance of amount i.e. 77.27 lakhs is to be disbursed/distributed after the allocation is received in the supplementary budget. He refers to the counter affidavit of respondents 1 & 3. A perusal of the order passed by this Court would show that by the said order, the rights of the petitioners have been adjudicated and they were held entitled to regular pay scales from the date the same were withdrawn by the concemed impugned orders, which were quashed, but this Court did not issue a .time bound directions to the respondents to make payment ofarrears. In light ofthe above contents of theorder passed bythis Courtif we examine the conduct of the respondents that they had taken steps for Contempt Petition No. 88 of 2008 ^A^\ obtaining allotment and sanction from the Government and they have disbursed major portion of the amount and are assuring that rest of the amount would be disbursed after allocation is received in the supplementary budget, it cannot be said that they have committed default in compliance of the order passed by this Court that too the willful default making them liable for punishment in contempt. At this stage Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this contempt petition with liberty to file another petition, if such an exigeney arises in future or there is inordinate delay in payment of balance amount or the amount legally due to each of the petitioners as per order passed by the writ court. Permission granted. Accordingly, Contempt Petition No. 88/2008 is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioners. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge c! vatti