IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (:-a^-€- / ' ' ^-•a©.i CONTEMPT PETTnON (C) N0. ?>°)'? OP ZOl^Mll^^ PETCTIONER 2. A. ^- ^y^ iw/^' ^//y' Smt. Usha Gupta W/o Shri Narendra ^upta, aged about 52 years, Ku. Rani Suryavanshi D/o B.R. Suryavanshi, aged about 49 years, ^ 3 Ku. Hemlata Shrivas D/o Shri Girdhari Shrivas, aged about 48 years, 4- Smt. Quresh Begum, W/o Shri Mohammed Arif, aged about 53 years, (A II working as Lecturer in Lal Bahadur Shashtri Muncipal Higher Secondary School, Sanichari, Bilaspur (CG)) Versus RESPONbENTS Shri Yashwant Kumar (IAS) {age and father's name not known to the petitioners, Presently posted as Commissioner, Muncipal Corporation. Bilaspur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNbER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTtON OF INblA READ WFTH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 ltjl.ffi:.'.i:.: |iii.il--...'-i-l'—-3i 4- T' -HG—78 '3'5T ';:5TT£TT^PT, ^>tli<-l^l(o, f®l<!ll<'-<^< ^_....C(?.A..C:<af...C?J.&J^<7Z^ 'qTqW^TTT^""^'"'"'" •"••'•••'•"•••^••/-"i""-^2(?'0' 3T?^?r TWF (^jp^r) 3TT^T'3FT f^fhF ^SH 37T^7 9h^icb ^rTOT ^rf^T 3TT^T TSB : HQn'ble Shri Maalndra Moban Sliriyastewa, J.1 29.9.2011 Shri Arviad Kumar Dub^, coiuisel for ftie petitioners. Heard on admission. tbe dlate wsls Leamed counsel for petitioners filed a writ petittio^i the post of Lecturer from fhe and fhe said writ petition 29.3.2006 passed in W.P. No| petitioners submits fhat in Court, fhe respondent is oblig^d pay on the post of Lecturer wi^ It is submitted fhat even fhojigh made by fhe petitioners to order of the Court has not beeh The writ petition filed terms of fhe order dated 29.31 Therefore, the petitioners CM^f<n<i1ti 1RTProt* ^ 'fexst <F3i^« ^^tRiH^^^r petitioners submits fhat fhe Glaiming beneflt of pay-scale on ofpromotion and other benefits wqs aUowed in terms of order dated 14003/03. Leamed counsel for fhe co^ipliance offhe order passed by fhe to pay fhe difference of salary of pi effect from the date of promotion. fhe representations have been th^ respondent-aufhority, tiU date, fhe complied wifh. th^ respondent- jy ftie petitioners was aUowed in .2006 passed in W.P. No.4003/03. jare entitled to fhe benefit flowing from fhe order. More fhan 1 year has elapsed, but fhe order of the Court has not been complied with. Even tf no time limit has .^ ^-... l^i XI-HG—78 ^TT^T'SFT^H^ 1cTSH W^T 5h^icb > <.- Praveen F ^ST ';:?Tf£TRT^, y>ti1-y<i(o, f®i<ni<Li^< *ii^^r^»WG^ "^ 200 w^?r 'qr^p (^f^^) '^TT^R ^cT 3:[T^T 2 been fixed, fhe compliance q defeired indefinitely. In case fhe respondentj benefits, to wNch fhe petiti^ passed by the Cqi.irt wifhin of receipt of copy of this Couij to approach flus Court agaui.j With the aforesaid disposed of. CM^t<rt^l 'HW^if ^f ^St ^^K ^^JfpFTW^T fhe order of the Court eamiot be does not pass any onler extendu^ )ners are entifled under the order period ofone month from the date t, the petitioners would be at liberty ot^servations, fhe petition 1s fmally Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge