HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH G SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI H.L. DATTU, C.J. Contempt Petition No. 25 of 2004 Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Miss Sharmila Singnai, counsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8t“ March, 2007) The complainant in this contempt petition was the writ petitioner in WP. No. 3737 of 2003. (2) This Court by its order dated 11-02-2004 has disposed of the writ petition and has issued certain directions to the.first respondent, namely, Municipal Corporation, Durg. The directions issued by this Court read as under : “ln the result, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to take the petitioner simmediately on his duty and respondents are further directed to settle his dispute immediately for payment of his salary for the period commenced from 17‘“ September, 2003 onwards within a period of 15 days from today after giving full opportunity to the petitioner.” Petitioner: Pramod Jha S/o Shri Kedar Nath Jha, Aged !50 years, resident of Maithil Para, Durg (C.G.). ’ Versus a- Respondent: Chandrakant Uikey, Commissioner, Municipai Corporation, Durg (C.G.) ‘(3 Alleging that the respondent has disobeyed the orders and dii'ections issued by thié Court on 11-02-2004 whiie disposing of WP. Nd.3737/2003, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, requesting this Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the resppndent and to punish him for the so caited wilfui gnd deliberate disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court. (4) Notice of the contempt petition was issued and served on the respondent. The respondent has entered his appearance through the learned counsel and has also filed return. ln that, the respondent has stated that immediately after passing of the order dated 11-02-2004 in W.P. No.3737l2003, he has taken back the petitioner on duty and so far as the settlement of salary due to the petitioner from 17-09-2003 is concerned, he has stated that he has asked the petitioner to produce a particular certificate. (5) ' Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would inform that immediately after receipt of a letter from the respondent, the petitioner replied the same that he would not be in a position to submit the sai certificate to the respondent. (6) So far as first portion of the order dated 11-02-2004 is concerned, the respondent has complied with the same. So far as second portionof the ordewis concerned, the respondent has issued a letter to the petitioner asking him to produce a particular certiticate. The petitioner pleads his inability to produce the said certificate. l d ) (7) lt is now for the respondent to pass an appropriate order whether the request of the petitioner for settlement of his saiary afor the period commenced from 17-09-2003 can be settled or not in absence of the certificate that he has asked to be produced by the petitioner. Since that has not been done, the respondent is directed to dispose of the dispute with regard to the saiary of the petitioner as eariy as possible within a month's tigne from today. (83‘ Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of. accordingly. (9) ~ Consequently, l.A. No.1 166 of 2004 stands disposed of. / sdl- Chief Justice ’ ‘ Ordered