HIGH COURT OF CHHATT(SGAR±L_B|LASPUR S.B.: . HQ|S[SBLE_SHRUUSTiCE_SUNiL_ KU^ARSJNHA 1 ^ CONTEMPT (0 N0. 239/2010 APPUCANT A.K. Dwivedi, S/o Late R.L. Dwlvedi, aged about 58 years, R/o Q. No. VV/28, Yadunana'an Nagar, (Tifra) Bliaspur (C.G.) RgS_PONDENTS VERSUS 1. Shri R.S. Sharma Secretary, Law & Legjsiatlve Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Smt Nidhi Chhibbar Secretary, Genera! Adminlstraticn Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, RaEpur (C.G.) 3. Shri N.K. Oswa! Secretary, Transport Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Shri Mudit Kumar Singh, Managlng Director, Infrastructure Deveiopment Corporatlon Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) OF IMDIA iVir. S.P. Kale, Advocate forthe petitioner. ORAL (29.09.2010) SUNILKUMARSJNHAJ.. Heard on admisslon. Petitioner- A.K. Dwivedi has filed this petition for Initiation of proceeding of contempt against the respondent for wiiifui default In compjiance of order dated 06.08.2010. Mr. Ka!e submits that since the services of the petitioner were not beinQ absorbed, the petitioner had to t'iie W.P. (S) No. 4245/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 06.08.2010 and it was directed vide para 5 of the said order as under:- "5. Taking into conside?"ation the facts and circumstances of the case, the Poiicy of Absorption, the Ru!e of Absorptlon framed by the State Government in the marter of absorption of empioyees caf erstwhile M.P.S.R.T.C. and further that iarge number of \ • similarly sltuated employees have already been absorbed in J;"^^\^ ;ii%\ 1 ;";%1 1 ^^^s1' CGNTEEViPT CASE (C| N0. 239/2010 •V<7 various departments of the Government In impiementation of the Absorption Poljcy and that the petitioner is going to retire on 31st August, 2010, it is dlrected that the case of the petitioner for absorption shall be considered by the concerned respondent- authorities, strictly in accordance vvith the Rules of Absorption framed by respondent No.1, as expeditlously as possible". He submits that no order relating to absorptlon was passed and the petitioner retired on 31.08.2010. His submisslon js that the above act of the respondente amounts to contempt. A perusal of the paper book vi/ould show that a review petition was also filed against the order dated 06.08.2010, which came to be registered as Review Petltion No. 97/2010 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 27.08.2010 and the eariier oraer dated 06.08.2010 was clarified. The ciarification in the Review petitlon is as foiiows:- "Taking into consideration the submissions made by !earned counsel for the parties, it is clarifled that thls Court has not issued any direction for absorption in a particuiar department or institution. It Is also clarifjed that the poiicy referred to jn the order, is the policy framed by respondent No.3. TSie order passed earfier on 06.08.2010, therefore, shall be understood and read in view ofthe clarificatjon given as above". The two orders passed In writ petition, as aiso in the Review petition wouid show that there was no time bound direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petition for absorption. tvloreover, after passing of the order dated 27.08.2010 in the review petltion, oniy 3 days time v/as left for retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner has already retired on 31.08.2010. In view of the above factuai scenario, I do not find it appropriate to proceed in contempt against respondents. The petition for initiation of contempt, therefore, is iiabie to be dlsmissed and Is hereby dismlssed summarily. — Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge