SinglB Ben^fi IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR t^ef-se^ Contempt Betitewi(C) N0. 2>o7 / 2011 {^'f/'a]lf PETITIONER: ..-:'^ o ^ s-^s>-"' ..<'' ^y^ >/^' ../^ ^' ^^y^^ Pappu Kumar Patel S/o Late Shri Lala Ram Patel, aged about 22 years, R/o Village Tumgaon, District Mahasaiaund (C.G.) J^J'^S" ./q/ <?yl/\y ^y RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR VERSUS Rajendra Prasad Sharma Chief Municipal Oflicer,Tumgaon District Mahasamund (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1C—78 3:nt?i ^iT h-f ^T^T 3TT^T'^T?N' ^io 'S'sf "!4|<4l(r!^, ®-ai'(-i<i<o,f»«niy4,< L^Lo..-..a^L/L • Wf '200 SII^T '^Wf; (Tpf^si^tT) '^i^f^l^EH HWW ^ ts^ <M<-$« ^aifwati^r SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 06419.2011 ! Ms. Morisha Chhatr!, counse! fii>rthe petitioner. Meara. 'his petition has been filed by oraer dated 11/3/2011 passeajn vv ana omer persons. ime pemioner aiieging WIIITUI disoDeaience of .P.(S) No.326/11 preferred by the petitioner Learned counsei for the petitipner submits that in the case of Dhaniram and others v. State^J;JinMtisa^manaotnersjnvV,P.!SlNo.6798/10 and virendra Das ManikDyri and oth4rs v. State of Chhanisgam in W.P.tS) [\io.74SOno, the Issue invoivea in consiaerea ana it was neia tnat remol/ai or aa'iv wage empioyees trom service on the basls of memo dated 23/OS|'2010 without considerinfl the cases of reguiarization as per memo aatea 5/3. in that case whereby me aaiiy wa^e employees were removed was quasheci reservina !iDenv to the autnonties to taKe steDs, ir so aavisea. in accoraance wiin law. it is also submitted that as thd this Court heid that the case of the cases. According to learned counsei and quashed and therefore, the petit and also entltled for consideration for ne wrrt peimon riiea Dy me pemioner was UH is iiiegai ana tne action OT tne Uorporation case of the petitioner was covered by order passed in the case of Dhaniram (Sijprai and Virendra Das Manikpuri (Supra), betitioner is squarely covered by the orders passed in the cases of Dhaniram (Sppra) and virendra Das manikpuri (Supra] and the writ petitibn was disposed op in the terms of .the orders passed iri those for the petitioner, the effect of such an order s tnat tne removai of the petitioner viipe oroer aatea i3/i/-^u"!i vi/as aeciareo iiiegai oner was entitiea to reinstatement in service reguianzauon in terms OT tne oraer passea in XI-HC—78 3n^t^1?;tNT Tfsn" 3H^ a»Hict) /*-> ^r *<l*!Wt «aNF^» ^S( •^l'1)!^^, ^IT7(TT3,,1sRTOlTP; /ca&eCc) Ui . IAJ3 sn^i ?^nwHf?g sn^i ^ atiMi<'i'41i ^W^^ fel^t Tt^T^ •^affimsn^r those cases and as per the Governfrient policy dated 5/3/08. After the order was j passed on 11/3/2011, the petitioner |sent representation through his counsei to the respondent on 21/3/2011 for taking ^ppropriate steps towards reinstatement of the services of the-petitioner but no acti^n was taken. Thereafter, a notice of initiating contempt proceedings has also beeifi served on the respondent. But even tili date, no steps have been taken towards reinstatement, whlch amounts to willfui aisoDeaience OT me oraer or inis t-;oun. in the case of Dhaniram (sifpra), the order was passed on 20/1/2011. it was found that removai of daily walge empioyees under memo dated 23/09/2010 was i!iegal as tne saia memo aoes| not proviae ror removai OT aii me aaiiy wage employees but only provides for r^covery trom me concernea uommissioner / Municipal Officers. It was further i|ieid that in view of the Government Poiicy of reauiarization dated 5/3/08, rertiovai without consideration of cases of reauiarization in the aarb of memol dated 23/09/2010 was iliegai. The action of removal was declared iileaai and aijashed. The effect of disGosina off thifc Detition nied bv the Detitioners, in terms of the order passed in the case of Dhaihiram iSupra'! and vlrendra Das WIanikpur'! (SuDra) is that removai / terminati<)n of the dailv wage empiovees is held iiiegal and quashed. Fherefore, the pet!ti<j>ner is emitlea to reinstatement in service. it is found that though representation h^s been made, the respondent has not passed any order. However, taking into (^onsideration that the order was passed in the case of the petitioner on 11/3/2Q11 and the order states that the petition is disposed off in terms of Dhaniram suDmit a copy of tnis oraer aiong wi| Supra) andvlrendra Das manikpuri (Supraj, instead of issuing notice at this sta^e, it would be proper to aiiow the petitioner to th other relevant orders Defore me responaem. ^ ^^ XI-HC—78 HINMi *<fl^i TST •^WW<J,, »Tlly';(S, fs|?ljyLt< ;' '^"'C^e'CC.Y fi^l"- .^^''lA^- 3671-/'/ "W^ 200 sii^r'T?^' (Tpf:i«i^t?) 3llt?»VT R;-ti+ W 3TT^T rtiH '..•u Deep{i ^T4f<?l<ft't 'V^i ^ 'fe^ '^^: ^sifwsn^r If the respondent does not pa^s appropriate order of reinstatement within a oeriod of nvo weeks from the date of receiot &f copy of this order. unless there is an interim order if any, either passeejl in tne case or me petitioner or in me cases relied upon by the-petitioner in the \A^it appeai, the petitioner would be at iiberty to revive this contempt petition. The p^itioner shaii piace a copy ofthis order passed bv this Court before the resoondent. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is llnaiiy disposed on. Sd/- .Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge _^ Bfe-.