HIGH^OURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (Cl No. 171/2009 PETITIONER Sunil Dubey, s/o Shri R.S. Dubey, aged about 53 years, Occupation Sub-Engineer, P.H.E. Department (E/M) Bilaspur (C.G) R/o 14/1182, Nehnilary R/2 Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G). Vs. 1 P.C. Dalai, Secretaiy, Department of Public Health Engineering Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G). 2 D.S. Randhwa, Engineer in Chief, Public Health Engineering, Neer Bhawan Raipur (C.G) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPQNDENTS Appearance: Miss Depali Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (18.02.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J, Heard. Petitioner Sunil Dubey has filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents for the alleged default in compliance of the order dated 13th of February, 2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6571/2008. This Court while disposing of the W.P(S) No.6571/2008 passed the following orders: (<1. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a direction that the State respondents may be directed to hold Departmental Promotion Committee meeting \ within a period of three months from the date of \ promotion of Sub-Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineer. CONT.CASE fONo. 171/2009 2. In response, the respondents have filed their return stating as under: u16. Reply to Para 8.9 : The contents stated in this paragraph do not provide any benefit to the case of the petitioner. As already stated the answering respondents are taking all necessary steps for convening the meeting of DPC and only then the case of the petitioner for promotion will be considered.?? 3. In view of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing remains for adjudication. 4. However, having regard to the facts situation of the case, it is expected that the respondents would constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee and hold meeting as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months. 5. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.?? Miss Pandey, submits that since the meeting of DPC was not being held the petitioner had to flle this contempt petition. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the reply and additional affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondents. As per the contents of Para 9 of the affidavit dated 04th ofJanuaiy, 2010, meeting of the DPC has already been convened on 02.01.2010. He adds that thereafter the entire file in relation to the said DPC has been sent to the concerned minister for necessary approval etc. Since the meeting of DPC has already been convened on 02.01.2010, I do not deem it necessary to proceed further in this matter. The proceedings of contempt, therefore, are dropped at this stage. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file other petitions after perusal of the results of the DPC, if so required. 1 Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge ^