IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) cfT' ^ CQNTEMPT CAS^ro. ch44 /2011 (Arisins out oforder dated 02/02/2011 passed in W.A. No.342/2010) PETITIONER ....---^'rS.:,-pyt' y.^-'^y^T^ ^^ :'^--:--^-';'r4 ^..^^689.«.'<»8i v^'. .^-:.^-'.'•."'" ^..^^s .-n-^ --1."' '" -^s^8' 'p;es-.-<"""1^>'' 'o^'""^ / CONTEMNORS Ig^fsi^ Bw*faw<?p' , g.? ^^ u,^ iS.^"—--' A ^' Shankar Singh Verma, S/o Shri Rikhan Singh Verma, Aged about 41 years, Working as Forest Guard, Territorial ForestDivision, Dhamtari, Dhamtari, Distt- Dhamtari (C.G.) VE R S U S 1. Dr. B.S.Anant, Secretary, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sunil Mishra, The Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur Circle, Aranya Bhawan, Medical College Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Narendra Kumar Pandey The Divisional Forest Officer, Territorial Forest Division, Dhamtari, Distt-Dhamtari (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THB CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971 l\ HIH^If Sh^ich ^3'wj' "ili^lcn^, ^ft^T^, '^fRT^^ ^...c^{r,....c^^).^^^h 3^1 ^T ^Jch ^IT ^i^T $?i^i|cfi ^TT^T TR^T (^t^^F) wnw ^rfB-cf 3Ti^r SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohah Shrivastava. J. 19-10-2011 Shri Janak Hidko, counsei foi Learned counsel for the petitijoner submits that the petitioner was entitied for consideration of his case for out of 15A(1) of Chhattisgarh Ciass-lil Rules, 1967 (for short 'the Rules o ^urn promotion in view of the provisions in Ruie |Non Ministerial) Forest Service Recruitment 1967!). However, by an executive instruction preferred bythe respondents, whscll Learned counsei for the peti| out of turn promotion is still in op^ considered by the respondents whic^h is contemptuous. am afraid, the submissiorli considering cases, rule relating to The effect of quashing circuiar <P constituted, the respondents wouic( appiying the provisions ofthe Ruie^ !n the absence of any spej( ^I^<n4)^ W:T^Tf ^ tt^zt <P»j^l< ^ 3?Rm ^rr^ the petitioner issued on 21/4/08, the operation of|the rule was stayed which was chaiienged by fiiing writ petition. The writ petitic|n filed by the petitioner and other aggrieved officers were decided by a commjon order dated 21/4/10. The circuiar dated 21/4/08, staying operation of statutojry ruie, was deciared iilegal and quashed. The Court further obsen/ed that the pe^itioners are entitled to consequential benefits flowing from the order, in accordan|ee with the Ruies of 1967. A writ appeai was was also dismissed on 2/2/201 1. :ioner submits that Ruie 15 A (1) providing for ration, the case of the petitioner is not being of iearned counsel for the petitioner is not correct for the reason that in the pe|ition, it has not been pieaded that the cases of eiigibie officers were taken up for ^onsideration in any constituted DPC and whiie out of turn promotion was not given effect to. iated 21/4/08 is that as and when DPC is be under obligation to consider the cases by of1967. ;ific direction in the writ petition filed by the petitioner directing the respondentjs to consider the case of the petitioner wjthin ndent \-[^RT^TTq—FS/140—2 / 20; S - 1,50,000. ^&i: \^9/ "^^^ '23 ^ITOW^W^i ^^ -^I^Kri^, ^ni'H^, f^TRT^^: ..(^..:.....(^b^l^±^(0^ ^n^r ^T^T (1i^5^"<^) 3?l^l "^T'f^TW WT31T^T^?NF Deepti |nniaN^ '^TTW^f^i 3^'^T -^' any statutory period, in the opinion proceedings is made out. The petition is therefore dismi ^(^^l^ 1RTR^;?t*'^ fe^ ^^R ^ 3tftfH 371^1 of this Court, no case for initiating contempt teed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge -:,:^?^ ^^ q^urr^r, ^^.TT^TN—FS/140—2/20? h ~1,50,000.