IN THE HQN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR "^y CONTEMPTCASENO. 2.f0 OF 2011 SinahBeBck PETITIONER ^> no-<sb...»<^ ^ ..^''%^'*x ^A^'" ^f -^^ ^^<?1 '^^r^ ^NTEMNOR : Girish Sharma, Aged-35, S/o L. N. Sharma R/0 Village- Chaitma, Tah.- Pali, Dist. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS R.P.S.Tyagi Collector Korba, Dist. Korba (C.G.) T. Aashir Kumar Block Education Officer Pali Dist. Korba (C.G.) Prem Singh Markam Chief Executive Officer Pali, Dist.- Korba (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT 2. 3. ACT R/W UNDER ARTICAIf^lS OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :-SC—78 311^T ^T f^ltsF ^f^H W^? 5h*iiqb 1. ^K'l 'WWW^HI^ ^sr -^TPTT^?, ^N^, I^Trary; . C^^-G.^C)^^W •"^20'0 3n^?"q^T(^t^"^) ^T^TW^rft^ ^TI^? SB : Hon'bleShri Manindra Mohail petitjons 11-07-2011 Shri H. V. Sharma, counsel Heard. Learned counset for the p^ services were illegally terminated vi(] the Collector, which was subjected No. 1442 of 2011 and batch of | the case of the petitioner, were fi 29-04-2011, in view of the subsed 22-02-2011 had been recalled and r| Thereafter, though, the petitioner di^ order dated 06-04-2011, in large ni| Santosh Kumar Patel, an interim 12-05-2011 (Annexure A-10) in protection against termination. Learrj that though the petitioner has subn^ collectively filed as Annexure A-7 to amounts to witlfut disobedience of case of the petitioner and batcl^ 12-05-2011 passed in the case ofSj of 2011). The pleadings of the petiti| various documents that the order modified order has been passed oj under Section 85 (1) of the Chhattisj Though, other persons have filed ^ case that he himself has not filed g '^Fite^fh "^R^ ^ it^t ^f^R i?3tRRW^i Shrivastava, J. fcjr the petitioner. titioner submits that the petitioner's le order dated 22-02-2011 passed by :o chattenge by filing Writ Petition (S) involving similar issues induding nally disposed off vide order dated |uent development that order dated ew orderwas passed on 06-04-2011. not file any writ petition challenging imber of cases including the case of ^rder was passed by this Court on iW.P.(S)No.2595 of 2011 granting |ed counsel for the petitioner submits litted representation to the Cottector, p^-9, he is not being re-instated, which dated 29-04-2011 passed in the of petitions as also order dated antosh Kumar Patel (W.P.(S)No.2595 bner itself shows and is evident from yated 22-02-2011 was recalled and p 06-04-2011 in exercise of powers |arh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. ^rit petition, it is the petitioner's own |ny writ petition assailing correctness ofr'der .? fc....-.^ 1 -f^:::^':':,-^J.'^~-.^\ ^ ft XI-HC—78 3Ti^T ^T R^i°b ^^T'3?T^T ^RhF Tumane t. '•:3TPTr?FT,^tTPT?, t^ST^Ty 't-iw^r^wra's' (^t^^?) ^TmW^I^^T^T ^-Z-- ^ncTvaTCTIy^~^r3e^~aitea~DB-04^IJ 06-04-2011, any order has been pa| of disobedience of Court's orderi Learned counsel for the petitioner passed in favour of the petitioner a^ petition assailing correctness and v^ in the absence of any such directioj inclined to issue notice in the instantl With the aforesaid observatioi -^N^T^I ^mcTf -^ f^zif 1rf^R?R ^^tf^ia^T TT7TTBci§e7pUriuanTto°or^^ ssed against the petitioner, allegation dated 29-04-2011 does not arise. )ould not point out any interim order well as the petitioner did not file writ lidity of order 06-04-2011. Therefore, i in favour of the petitioner, 1 am not petition. i, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge