?ii^? i^SS|SS*!S'sSSBS,B^®;'siw@'S^^^S?TJ?>'".•'' !«fl IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION N0. ^ C. I OF 2007 (ARISING OUT OF W.P. N0. 3458/1990) PETITIONER ^^ RESPONDENT CONTEMNER Sushil Kumar «^ S/o ^Shri Naik, ^ffld- d 2 y&<5-, Raghunandanlal,^CIerk-cum-Cashier at present posted at-Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Branch-Bhedvan, (Sarangj^rh) >s,1^ District-Rai VIE R_SJJ S .G.) Mr. R.C. Olli, President, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, l-1ead Office-Recreation Road,Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE W215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH : BiLASPUR Sjngle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. PETITIONER RESPONDENT CONTEMPT PETITION N0.261/2007 Sushil Kumar Naik Versus Mr. R.C. Olli CONTEMNOR CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OFCOURTS ACT, 1971 Present: • Shri K.N.Nande, counsei for ttie petitioner. Shri P.R. Patankar, counse! for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11ih January, 2011 ) This contempt petition has been fiied by the petitioner against non- compliance of order dated 1 7/07/06 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3458/90. 2. Learned counset for the petitioner argued that vide order dated 17/7/06, this Court ailowed the petition with a direciion to respondent No.1 therein to promote the petitioner in accordance with directions given by the Supreme Coun. in the case of Hargovind Yadav v. Rewa SMhi Gramin Bank and ofhers (2006 AIR SCW 2822). After the order was passed by this Court, it is submitted that the respondent passed an order on 12/4/07 purporting to compiy the wder ofthe Court whereas the same is utter violation .of the order and directions of this Court as stated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that vide circular dated 22/2/91, post of Senior Cierk cum Cashier was merged and oniy one singie cadre of Cterk cum Cashier was retained w.e.f. 1/9/87. it is submitted that in view of the aforesaid directions of the Government, instead of considering the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Cierk cum Cashier and grant him "Si«». %%A ft .;, -7" "y y. ^-y',.-^ ^sS-" promotion as such w.e.f. 1/7/90, the respondent was under an obiigation to consider the case of the petiUoner for promotion to the post of Field Supervisor as the said post of Field Supervisor is next promotional post to Senior Cierk cum Cashier. Learned counsei for the petitioner argued that the respondent authority ought to have gone into the spirit of the order of the Court and grant promotion to the petitioner as Senior Cierk cum Cashier ignoring that the said post was merged in the cadre of Cierk cum Cashier which cleariy shows the intention of the respondent to distort the true meaning and spirit of the order passed by this Court and is clearly an attempt of over reaching the orders and proceedings. 3, On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that this Court had directed the respondent to promote the petitioner In accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Hargownd Yadav. He submits that the case of the petitioner was examined in the iight of the order passed by this Court and reievant rules applicabie and also the judgment of the Supreme Court. The competent authority formed bonaflde opinion that on 1/7/1990, the cireuiar of the year 1990 did not exist and as per the reievant rules of the year 1988, promotion could be granted from ttie post of Junior Cierk cum Cashier to Senior Cierk cum Cashier. On this bonaflde understanding of the iegal position and rules as aiso the order of this Court, ttie promotioriaOircier has been issued. He further submitted that in view of the directions of the-Supreme Court in the cas6 of Hargovincl Yadav, the petitioner has been granted monetary benefits from the date of order and notional fixation has been done from the due date of promotion. He further submits that the seniority of the petitioner has been retained and he has been placed, over and above to respondent No.2 - Vitthai Ram in the writ petition. Leamed counsei for the respondent further submits that ••••s'^'^ t'ff :.' 5Mf"S- r '?'<p this fact on the part of the respondent shows that he has highest regards for the orders and proceedings of this Court. Further submission of iearned counsel for the respondent is that the respondent authority has passed the order on the basis or understanding of the iegal position and the order of this Court and if the petitioners contention is that in view of merger, the petitioner was not only entitied to be merged as Clerk cum Supervisor but aiso entitled to promotion to the next higher post of Field Supervisor, it is open for him to taKe recourse to such remedy as may be avaiiable to him undsr the law. 4. The petitioner had filed W.P.No.3458/90 claiming promotfon to the post of Senior Clerk cum Cashier. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working and posted as Junior Cierk cum Cashier. The order shows that the petiiionersought a direction to promote the petitioner above respondent No.2 and 3 in the writ petition. it is also not in dispute that respondent no.2 was promoted as Senior Clerk cum Cashier in the year 1990 and respondent No.3 was promoted in the year 1988 and then promoted as Field Supervisor. It was admitted position before this Court that the bank has not foilowed the principle of promotion and the issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hargownd Yadavv. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank and others (2006 AiR SCW 2822). The direction of the Suprems Court in the case of HargovSncS yacisv®iatedto grant of notionai beneflts and actuai benefits to the petitioner in that particuiar case. The persons who were promoted in theyear 1990 as Senior Cierk cum Cashier and the persons who were entitled to'be merged as Cierk cum Cashier though working as Junior Clerk cum Cashier in view of the decision of 1991 may possibly claim for consideration of promotion to the post of Field Supervisor. However, it does not appear that the issue was specificaiiy raised by the ^y petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.3458/90 nor is there any direction by this Court that the petitioner should be promoted as Fietd Supervisor. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, even for the sake of arguments, if it is accepted that the order of promotion is erroneous, it is difricutt to hoid that the respondent is guitty of violation of the order passed by this Court. if the claim of the petitioner is that in view or merger, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Field Supervisor from the date, he has been granted promotion as Senior Clerk cum Cashier, it is for the petitionerto raise such dispute in appropriate Forum. 5. Accordingly, rule is discharged. Learned counsei for the petitioner sought liberty to agitate the issue and challenge the order of promotion dated 12/4/07 by fiiing separate petitlon. 6. it would be open for the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law. With Uie aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge