IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Contempt Case Civil No.. ry^_] /2010_(S.B.) ^~~1 Ads :{>{1®," PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS Dr. Kumari Vidya Naidu, D/oY.y.R. Naidu, aged about 56 years, Occupation - Principal, Govt. High School, Nandkatti Block. District-Durg (C.G) M.K.Raut Secretary, School Education D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) K.R. Pisda Director Public Instructions, Pension Bada, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) B.L.Kurrey District Education Officer, District:-Durg (C.G.) CONTEMPT PRTITION UNDER ART1CLE 215 OF THE CONSTIUTION OF INDIA -^^^' »--^^^'...--" .<^<*M^. /^>-<^ fs/ J »(S.K. %>•' ^« ^•<8^...^<\T^V ^•"'oY^ (O 2. f^.. ^^\ !t |» 3 READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT sn^T^ii WM sw^s s^^i'ti ~^^ -* ^sg ^ii'illcf'4. ©fllu'is.(«<wi'My SIT^T •q^g? ...^^^&^^J^ WW'tT g)R[cb Iq^tT' 311^1 ^gRR ?l)t?T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mtohan Shrivastava. J. 15.02.2011 Shri V. \%jay, counsel for Shri SushU Dubey, cozmi Leamed counsel for the p^ thls Coiut had passed an No.2765/10, du^cting respon<f claim of fhe petitioner for graijtt respondents authority have nof the Coiirt and have wiBfully disji ititioner subinits that even fhough (n-der on 18.6.2010 in W.P. (S) lents to consider and decide fhe of two advance increments, fhe ^. pald any heed to fhe dtrection of ijobeyed fhe order. ffled by respondents No. 2 & 3; coimsel for respondents No. 2 was based on the judgment dai thls CoiirtmW.A. No. 124/09. appeal, the State Oovemment January, 2011 (Annexiire R- submits that fhere was no respondents authorily to Uout <*i<<fcl''il-) ^Wdf'?fetA <fa<(i< •^3iP<m3i]^i the petttioner. el for respmidents No. 2 8s 3. Referrmg to the avermen|ts made in the reply and afBdavit it has been submitted by leamed |& 3 that fhe case of the petiticmer ted 29.4.2010 of Division Bench of P:n view of the order passed ta writ has now issued dlrection cxn 5th P.) to all fhe District Education Officer tp release two advance i|ncrements m applicable cases. He intention on fhe part of fhe pie order of the Court, but in view of the order passed by fhis Co^irt ui nnmber of cases aad in the writ appeal, the inatter was t^tken-up by the Govemment and now fhe orders have been passAd. !':!-f^ '.-^^n ! ^xx^ 1 1 ^SS^^S /S XI-HC-22 »•>... ''t^yy ^'•^SSS^" 311^1 qiT Ki-fi.'t) 3Tg?I ^tf^ "^^ Ecayeen •» ^5T -Ml'iildai, iSTi1'yJI<i. ^Miyy Sf[^[ TR^ viwni shlich "(H, 200 •fq^sr' STI^I ^RHW ^rfttt -^- uiade On such statement supported by an affidavlt a4 passed by the State Govemm^nt uiclined to iiutiate contempt pil-oceedin; 2 & 3 at this stage. The respondents aufhori|y petitioner and pass appropriatj( 5U> January, 2011. The rule, h<t>wever. 'hi'tlid'iil-l 'WRif 4 fetA 'rf^RZR i; aiNit siii?r by respondents, which is d after going (hrough fhe order on 5th Januaiy, 2011, I am not oceedings a^unst respondents No. shall do well ui fhe case of fhe e orders in vlew of fhe order dated iwever, required to be dlscharged. Accordir^ly, the rule is d^schai^ed and the petition is finalty dlsposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ! -:^ •^Tf