^^sy^"- Il^gEjIKm €^©URTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) GONTEMPT PETITION N0. / <3 f) /2007 lff & APPLICANT PMITIONER 1. Atma Ram Yadav, ^ S/o. Shri. KayasthlalYadav Aged about 46 years, Time Keeper, Municipal Corporation, Korba (C.G.) Mannulal Rafhore, S/o Shri. Arjunlal Rathore, Time Keeper, Municipal Corporation Korba (C.G.) „^«\i..^ •:--%f3?^^^" ,.s^^ ••- >'"'^ . " RI ^^f gg^a... 3. ^Nawadhalal Patel, S/o Shri. MohitRam Patel, Time Keeper, Municipal Corporation Korba(C.G.) | 1 4^-- Rattavir Singh, S/o Shri. ReedhRam, Time Keeper, Municipal Corporation Korba(C;G.) 5. Rameshwar Prasad Rathore, S/oSukhruRam Rathore, Time Keeper, Municipal Corporation Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT A.K.Sharma, Commissioner^ Municipal Corporation, Korba (C.G. CONTEMPTPETITIONUNDER_ART!SLE215^QFCONSTITUTIONOF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 10_8s t2 QF GONTEMPTOi^COURT ACT, FORINin^NNG CONTEaMPT PROeEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPQNDENT/CONTEMNOR. FOR NON-COMPUANCE AND DIS- QBEBI^eEOTO D^aATBD_23T^.2067PASSE®lNM.C.C.iro. 1057S007 & M.C.C. No?1f12/2007 BY'HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.K. AGNIHOTRI ^ ^ HX6H COURT OF CHMATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR CQNTEfWPTPETITION NQ. 198 OR 2007 .1 Ififj APPLICANT PETITIONER y^, ,^> Vs RESPONDENT 1. Atma Rart Yadav, S/o. Shri Kayasthlal Yadav, Aged about 46 years, Time Keeper, Municipal Corporation, Korba (C6). 2. MannuyRathore, S/o. Shri Arjuhlal Rathore, Time Keeper, Municipal Corporation, Korba (CG). 3. Nawadhalal Patel, S/o. Shri MohitRam Patel, Time Keeper, Municipal Corporation, Korba (C6). 4. RaTtavrr Singh, , S/o. Shri ReedhRam, Time Keeper, Municipal Corporation, Korba (C6). 5. Rameshwar Prasad Rathore, S/o. SukhruRam Rathore, Time Keeper, Municipal Corporation,Korba (C6). A.K. Sharma, GomiTiissioner Municipal Corporation, Korba (C©). K 'resent: Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate for the Qpplicant. Mr. Sanjay K Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14fh March^ 2008) bhirendrd Mishra. J v 1. This contempt petition has been initiated by the appticdntts/ petifionefs for non-compliance of ordei- dated 23''d March, ZOQ7passedinM.G.8. N0405/07 A^M •it li;i!!-l'i- 2. This, Court vide conimon order dated 15th February, 2006 (Annexure c-1) passed in W.P. No.1108/1996 <& W.P. No. 900/1996 directed the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Korba to consider the cases of the petitioners for their regularization in their services in accordance with |aw. 3. On3.3.2007 the respondent Municipal Corporation, Korba filed applications for extension of time of further three months' for compliance of the orderdated 15th February, 2006 and the same were registered as M.C.C. No.105/07 <& M.C.C. No.112/07. The above two matters were disposed of by common order dated 23rd March, 2007 (Annexure C-6) and this Court was /i pleased to grant three months' time to comply with the order dated 15t February,2006. 1-lowever, even after extension of period of three months and despite several representations by the applicants/petitioners, the respondents havenpt complied with the order dated 23rd March, 2007 (Annexure C-6). 4. Respondent herein in hiscounter affidavit has stated that in compliance of the Court's order dated 15.2.2006 the matter was placed before the AAayor-in-Council of Municipal Corporation, Korba on 15.6.2007 and Mayor-in-Council has resolved and decided vide AnnexUreR/lA that the petitioners' services Cannot be regularized at presentin view of the fact that rules has to be framed by the State 6overnmerrf-7lt was further resolved that further proceedings will be dbne after policy decision of the State Government with regard to the regularizatiohand accordingly, the said decision of Mayor-in- Council was communicated to the petitioners vide tetter dated 12.7.2007 of Annexure R/1B. The Stdte 6overnn'>ent vide circular dated 3.1.2007 of Annexure R/lb directed that the daily wages employees appointed after 31.12.1988 would not be regularized under any condition. Thereafter, the Stdte Government vide memo dated on 4.4.2007 (AnnexureR/lE) has •f~. constituted a Committee pursuant to the decision of the 1-ton'bte Supreme Gourt for making recommendations with regard to the regularization. 5. This Court vide order dated 15+ February, 2006 disposed of W.P. No.1108/96 with the fottowing observations:- "For the reaSons stated above, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider thecases of the petitioners in W.P. No.1108/1996 andthe petitionerNo.2 namety Rameshwar Prasad Rathore inW.P. No.900/1996 to regularize their serviceson the postlooking to the availability of vacancies, in accordance with law." < ^ ioshdn/- 6. From perusal of the counter affidavit submjtted by the respondent herein it is clear that representation submitted by the applicants herein stands decided by the Municipal Corporation, Korba and learned counsel for the petitionerscould not point out any iltegality committed by the respondent in deciding their representation. 7. Therefore, in view of The reply submitted by The respondent herein, no further action is necessary in the present contempt proceedingand as such, the proceeding against the respondent herein is dropped. BhirendFaMisbra Judge K@ M9M i ["