HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contempt Petition No‘179 of 2008 PETITIONER: Santosh Kumar Mishra, aged about 45 years, Slo lndrajeet Mishra, Occupation Upper Division Teacher, Boys Ashram Orchha, District Narayanpur (CG) RESPONDENTS: 1. Ku. Sangeeta Mohanti, aged about 40 years, Secretary, Mata Rukhmini Seva Sansthan, Dimrapal, Tahsil Jagdaipur, District Bastar (CG) 2. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, aged about 45 years, Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Office Jagdalpur, District Baster (CG) Present Shri Vishnu Koshta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prafulia Bharat, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, counsel for respondent No.2. ~Versus~ Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, J. ORAL ORDER (166-2010) vs 1. The instant contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner with the allegation that Writ Petition No.4464/1 991 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 7‘“ December, 2606 with a direction to respondent No.1 Mata Rukmani Seva Sansthan, Dimrapal to decide the representation filed by the petitioner by passing appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of representation. However, the respondents have not passed any order on the representation of Annexure— C/2 dated 8—2-2007 by which the petitioner had claimed an amount of Rs.4,15,793/s towards arrears for the period 4-9—1985 to 30‘“ June 1994. However, without passing any order on his representation in which the petitioner has submitted the entire calculation for his. claim, a total sum of Rs.1,87,272/- has been paid towards arrears for the period 1—7—1994 to 315‘ March, 1999. 2. Shri Prafulla Bharat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, referring to reply to the contempt petition and documents annexed therewith, argued that the order passed by the High Court has been duly complied with and in compliance thereof, representation preferred by the petitioner has been decided vide memo dated 3’“ December, 2007 and as per ca3culation of respondent No.1 organization, the petitioner is entitled for a total sum of Rs.1,87,272/— towards arrears of pay. He further submitted that a detailed calculation has also been annexed with the document of Annexure—R~1/5. 3. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No2 submitted that after receiving communication of Annexure— C/2 addressed by respondent No.1, an amount of arrears has been duly paid to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in case, the petitioner has any other claim towards arrears, the same may give him a separate cause of action and any dispute regarding entitlement towards arrears of pay cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having perused the order passed by this Court (Annexure 0-1) and considering the reply of the respondents, l am of the opinion that the order passed by this Court has been complied with. lf the petitioner is not satisfied with the calculation on the basis of which arrears of salary has been paid to the petitioner, he is at liberty to initiate separate proceeding for realizing the same. 6. With the aforesaid observation, contempt proceedings are dropped and the petition is disposed of. Sdl- Dhirendra Mishl‘a Judge Barve