',»J\.-^-\-^^^.-^'\^^- ^^.^^^^^^^^o&^^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGIi GOURT GF CHHATTISGARH /^^^ ContemDtCaseTC^No. ATBILASPUR ^llf .U) ^^*^ttl&'KN /2011 PETITIONER •s^- }-^^: RESPONDENTS ^ 2] ^'\i' ^ Abhaya ram Yadu S/o. Late Shobharam Yadu Aged about 65 years, R/o. College ward Dhaniya Teacher colony, Raipur (C.G^) VERSUS Shri M.K. Raut Secretary, School Edueation Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Shri. Sunil Kumar, Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur •^ ^ CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2l.'-; OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 10 OF CONTEMPT OF GOURTS ACT. 1071 Thepetitionermosthuniblybegstosubmitasunder:- ^^rjl r T (:- ,\; .^- )^ XI-HG—78 ^TT^r^rf^w ^^a^i^rpCTN? 75=f T<11^1<yt^, ^ti1-M^<o, (c|diy^< —.....<^.^.1:.C^C^;^U/Jf nmcff «»*ii<t» " • ^ ^ 200 3n^?r 'T^;' ("^tf^s^r) li^TTW ^rf^T 37T^? anicifa<fli ^i^ciT^f fecst <p3<^j< '^3tRPT37^T SB : Hon^ble Shri Manindra Mohan Sbrivastava. J. 28.11.2011 Shri Manoj Paranjpe, co| Heard on adniission. Linsel for fhe petitioner. Learned counsel for tl(ie petitioner submits fhat vide order dated 19th March, 2010 , w^it petition filed by fhe petitioner and other 18 persons was dispo^cd of wifh a direction to consider fhe cases of the petitioner in observations made by fhis Co bhe maiuier and in the Ught of the Lirt in paragraph-9 of its order. Learned counsel for tl|ie petitioner submits fhat fhough fhe Court had directed the 4ntlre exercise to be completed as exepditioulsy as possible, th^re has been undue delay in taking the decision, which is agatast t] submits that after fhe order bie spirit of the order of fhe Court. He was passed by fhe Court, in. the month ofSeptember, 2010, fhe thei^ Secretary directed the Director, PubUc Instructions to submit reporf: and fhe Director sent his report dated 29.3,2010 to tfae Secretary oJ|fhe School Education Departinent, but, for the last abouf 8 montjis, fhe matfcer has remained pending wifhout any final decision jin the matter, because of which, the petitioner and other writ pe^tioners who are aU retired Govt. servant are unable to get the benefit them by this Court in its ord which are intended to be conferred upon ?r. XI.HG—78 ai^r^rl^rw . fr^Tw^r^ws" Praveen T c^ 15rcf '^Nitn'4, ^i{ly<l<o, f®ldt'yt|,<. HINCTI »»H|C|» "^ 200 ^ TT^RF ( ^cli^®l^) WHW^^^TI^T -z, Considering fhe submi fhe matter has remaiaed pei by ttie Director, Public Department on 29.3.2011, respondents at present whe^i and fhe nature of exercise re<| report has been submitted passed earlier requires re^ expeditiously, In case, respondent N matter as directed by the C{ monfhs from the date of red being passed, the petitioner Wifh fhe aforesaid ob^ of. ^ \^ ^t^nt ^f f^^ <R»«^|< ^7 ^tRpT a?|T^T L^sion fhat after fhe order of fhe Court, ^ding and that the report has been sent jjistructions to fhe Secretary of fhe |am not incUned to issue notice to the no specific time limit has been fixed luired to be undertaken. However, tf fEe ]3y the Director, fhe spirit of the order ^pondent No.2 to decide the matter b.2 does not take final decision in the [ourt earlier, within another period of 3 |eipt of copy of this order which is now ?rould be entitled to revive this petition. ^rvations, the petition is fanaUy disposed Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge