ZN THE HSGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BSLASPUR Contemp^ Cas^lo. <2-q-D /2011 si»ll«Benct Petitioners: •^ :,.<";^ ^f^si^ 1. 2. 3. ^Santosh Sharma age 63 years s/o Late Shri Sukhru Pd.Sharma, R>:rd.Naib Tahsildar DabhTa, Distt. Janjgir- Champa C.G. Resident of Bangali Para, Ne/v Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Shri Sunil Kujur, Revenue Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawar, Raipur (C.G.) Shri R.PJain, Commissioner, Bilasp^r Division, Distt. BilaspurC.G. Shri Brijesh Mishra, Collector Janjgir- Champa, Distt, Janjgir-Champa C.G. Comtempt Petition Under Section 2 fa) fb) and 12 ofContempt Of Court Act 1971 Read With Article 215 Of Constitution Of India. ^^^•^^ XI-HC—78 WHWI <»»<n^» ^ET r^i<4i<yt^, ^tirl-y<t(o, [®i<vii^y AJ-. ^^) ^D.^O/l TF[ 200 ^TT^T ^r^T (yif^<^r) ^T^T ^T R^<=b ^T^T 3T7^T 9h*<W Deepti '^RTTW^f^T 371^1 SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra IViohanl 18-07-2011 Shri Kamai Pandey, counsei f<|>r the petitioner. This petition has been fiied b\| order dated 18/01/2011 passed in vv'| CM^F<n<fli ^Tprof ^ fe^ft <F;J|<^|< '^3ti?W3^T Shrivastavs. J. the petitloner aiieging wiiifui disobedience of P.(s) No/3531/05. Learned counsei for the petiti6ner submitted that In the writ petition flied by the petitioner, this Court directed thelState Government to conslder the case ofthe petjtioner for promotion to the pos consequentiai reiief. Further directio|n was issued to the DPC to consider whether the petitioner Is entitied to grant of diference of pay. Learned counsei for the pe' representation on 3/2/2011 to the respondents have not taken finai litioner submstted that the petitioner sent a lecretary of the Department but tiil date, the Ijecision v/ith regard to petitioners case for However, if the order of this Court i^ the petitioner wouid be at iibertyto r^vive this petiiion. The petition is accordingly dis^osed off__—- of Tahsiidar as on May, 1998 as aiso for promotion. Taking into consideration, tife nature of exercise which requires to be undertaken by the respondents in c4mpiiance of order dated 18/01/11 and that no specific time iimit has been stipulat^d for compietion of the exerdse and that the petitloners case is required to be c^nsidered on the basis of the records of period upto 1998, i am not inciined to is^ue notjce to the respondents at this stage. not complied with within a reasonabie period, .^a^s ivasta<'a 'jud^ ^