IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.l CONTEMPT PETfTK5N No.....,,.,,.3p.4.......20l0 c^^^^^ APPLICANT CONTEMNORS r-"% »(Sl». ^iTv^ B@np(I : Smt. Nirmala Shrivastava, aged 55 years, W/o Shri Pannalal Shrivastava, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Udan, Block & Tahsil Chhuikhadan, ^ Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versys 1. R.P.Mandal, Secretary, School Education Department, Ministry, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) ^. ShriR.L Maksya Joint Director, (Kosh, Lekha and Pension) Raipur(C.G-) Shri M.L. Sonwani, District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 4. Shri F.R. Verma, Block Education Officer, Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) APPLICATION U/S 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT ~:¥~ -4~ ^^ -HC—78 WHW\ (h^l^l 'T^r ^||q«rfq, ^til^^Ko, f^TPRy ^^..c.^..^.;.x.^.(:.a..^...<?..^ ^^ ....................................,............^ ^^ ^n^ XT^F (li°i^<aE<<^) 3T^T^FT'f^F WT ^TT??l5F>Tff^F -i- ^TTW^rfi^3Tr^?T <=hJ^d^1T1 tTO^f ^ fs^ Tf^?R ^3ffOT3T^T |SB s Hon?ble Shri Manindra NO^SISI SSirivastava, J.] 27.8.2011 Shri Somkant Verma, Shii Pankaj Shrivastav. Shri Sushil Dubey, cohinsel cour^sel for fhe petitioner. counsel for respondent No.2 for respondent No,3. This contempt petition willlul disobedience of order CourtmW.P. (S) No. 3154/05 Leamed couusel for fhe fhe petition was allowed by extended to the petitioner passed by this Court on 9€hA; lapsed, but, the benefits hav< fhe petitioner is a retii'ed emp yas been filed by fhe petitioner alleging dated 9th April, 2010 passed by this On the other hand, U submitted th.at respondent relatmg to pension and respc( his memo dated 1.6,2010 requesting for compliance c{ petitioner could be proceededj of appropriate orders of fhe fhe order passed by the Courlj. Ipetitiouer submitted that even tiiough fie Coiirt, the beuefits have not been tUl date. He submits fhat the order bril, 2010 and more fhan one year has not been given to the petitioner and loyee. ^araed counsel Ibr respondeut No.2 (No.2 is concerned with tiie matter badent No.2 fon^arded the matter vide [o the Secretary of fhe Department df the order and the matter of the witii by respondent No.2 only receipt ^ompetent authority ia compliance of h -+ ^J!^^^ -4 I ? 1 -••^•^^ ^ '^\ ~ /- .;'.• '^. '-^^-.^' A XI-HC—78 3TT^T ^T'(^TN? WT 37T^T sR-qw ^ ?^T "41^1<r1^, ^ti1'M<l<o, fsRTTOiy *<1*1MI <ai<<T^» -^ 200 ^TT^TXR^ (^o|f^<s|<^T) ^TTWTrf^T3^r Learned counsel for r< appeal was preferred against which remained pending for fiiially dismissed. He submil tmie may be granted to p: petitioner at the end ofresponjdent Taking in.to considerati< counsel for the parties, tak appeal which was earMer pre dismissed and tn. view of petitioner would be processe| proceed further ia the matter. As the order has been the authorities are under a4 and pass necessary orders, ^ ordered by fhis Court withoul respondent No.2, it appearsj ah-eady been forwarded vide of fhe Department. In fhis view of the maf necessary steps and pass nec| per the order of this Court pa| <^(<l(<yl<i1l '^^f ^ fS<Zt TfW^R ^3fRT*:T3H^T spondent No,3 submits that a writ fhe order passed on 9th April, 2010 bnie time and the same has now been fhat in tliese ctrcunistances, some locess and fina.lize the case of fhe .No.3. >n the submissions made by learned |ng iato consideration fhat fhe writ lerred, has been stated to have been (he statement fhat the case of fhe ;|i expeditiously, I am not inclmed to ^assed by tbis Court on 9th April, 2010, obligation to take appropriate steps ixtenduig benefits to fhe petitiouer as lurfher loss oftime. From the letter of that the case of the petitioner has |3iemo dated 1.6,2010 to the Secretary ter, all the respoudents have to take 'ssaty orders extending the benefits as isedon9thApril2010. k- 4- I'.' XI-HC—78 ^T^T ^FT'f^rt^' ^m ^rTT^T 9R-qi^ Praveea ^' ^ Ch 'S^ ^{ww^{, ^til-M^Ko, f®i(rii-y^< *<I*ICTI ^TR^, • •• •••••^200 3TT^?T 1q^F ( ^f^^) ^<TTW ^rftU 3^T^T ^^'-^ The petitioner shall Secretary of School Edu compUance. lu case the benefits whic not granted to the petitioner date of receipt of petitioner's this order by the Secreta^ of petitioner would be at liberty pl^ce a copy of fhis order before the t;ation Departoient for necessary {h have been ordered by tliis Court are l^ithin a period of 3 monfhs from fhe jrepresentation along witli the copy of ^he School Educatlon Department, the |o revive the petition. Wifh the albresaid disposed of. wrferth "RI^ ^? f^zt I^T^R ^^tRTq^l^T o^seryrations, tiie petitiou is finally^ Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge 's'