IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR]ft AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) /" ^ Contempt Case (C) No.b -> /2010. ^ r^~ Sll Mm ^. (Arising out of^pder dated 18.11.09 passed in writ petition (S) No. 6249/2009 by Hon^le High Court.) PETITIONER: ^ „ 1 ^.<":^l< ^..(••^.^,- [.^^:^'r' ^' ^•"" -iC.Penta, aged about 54 years, son of late K.Bakka, Peon Office ofjoint Director and Superintendent, Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, Disti^ct Bastar, Chhattisgarh. Versus ^ Respondent: IContemnor): ^Vikas Sheel, Secretaiy Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ,\. \^-~ CONTEMFT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMFT OF COURTS ACT. :-HC-22 -3^r ^ii^ttd'4. ^y'i^. r6«"ii'y'i< ^TTH^i^Nlcb 'q^raf? .:..<^?.c..^.^6' ^^/' ° 200 'f^rc^r' ^6 ^TT^T^T f^N' ^nS^ ?h^ict) '?TftFl 3^T ^TT^R: Trf^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J 20-01-2011 Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, counsel ft>r the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, coi|insel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petiti|oner submits that though the order passed by this Court on 18/11/09 has has been granted promotion, the 40nsec?uentia' benefits to which the petitioner is entitied under the law, ha\jre not been granted while passing the order of promotion on 26/4/2010. H4 further submits that there has been delay in complying with the order of thi^ Court. On the other hand, submission |of iearned counsel for the respondent is that on the date, order was passec| Heaith Officer, Jagdalpur has passec| petitioner. Learned counse! for the respondent is concerned, no contempt may be avaiiable to him under the consequential benefite as stated by the ctil<Lli<rt^lrl ^TFT^Tf ^ fe^ <p3i<^i< iFT 37f^W 3T^T been compiied with and the petitioner on 18/11/09 in VV.P.(S) No.6249/09, recommendations in respect of the p^titioner, were aiready considered and rejected and the same were communic^ted to the petitioner vide memo dated 7/11/09 but iater on, the competent at|ithority namely the Chief Medicai and an order granting promotion to the fespondent submits that in so mr as has been committed by him. It is thus seen that even before tjie order was passed by this Court, the decision with regard to the petitic|neris representation was taken at Govemment levei on 7/11/09 and latjsr on, the Chier Medicai and Heaith Officer has also granted promotion to ti{ie petitioner. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case of wiliful disobed^enGe of the order passed by this Court is made out. Accordingiy, ruie is disch^rged. The petitioner would be at Siberty to take recourse to such remedy as iaw in respect of ciaim, if any, of counsel for the petitioner. r-n^ t^ ^:"^ ^~ '"%. 1^^... XI'HC'22 ^ ^^^y^ Y ^^// ^S^ ^T?^[^T k^ 3TR^T 5^^icfr) ^rfic? Deepii ^ r ^^ '^rPTMZf. ^-al^^G, ^i^ii^y 31T^T 'q^? ..(^A:.6V?..4...(^J1.^ •^l1^ ^ WR^TT^W^ 'fq^ST' ^rrt?T ^T?fT^F( Trf^cT _ With the aforesaid observations, CM^<flr1^^ ^ 'fe^t <F31<^1< ^" ^Tf^FT 3Tli^T the petition is finaljy disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge i v:ftA 'S'fe"^