HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Contempt Petition No. 90 of 2008 APPLICANTS PETITIONERS NON-APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS Jati Ram Khunte, son of Dhola Ram Khunte, aged about 50 years, working as Chowkidar, resident of Kotba Tehsil Patthalgaon Distt. Jashpur (CG) Basant Sai son of Kola Sai aged about 40 years, working as Waterman, R/o. Baansbahar, Tehsil Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur(CG) Phool Sai aged about 41 years, son of Tarsu Ram, working as Cook R/o. Dumarmuda Tehsil Baagbahar Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Jag Mohan Ram son of Jedhu Ram aged 33 years, working as Peon R/o. Dumarmuda Tehsil Baagbahar, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Nehru Ram Yadav, son of Bajar Ram aged about 38 years, working as Peon R/o. Kotba, Tehsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur(C.G.) Vs. Shri M.K. Raut, Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Shri Durgesh Mishra, Collector (Aadim Jati Kalyan Branch Jashpur, Tehsil and Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) at present posted at Ambikapur Shri Bhupendra Kumar Rajput, Assistant Commissioner, Deptt of Tribal Welfare, Jashpur Distt.Jashpur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Rahul Jha & Mr. Vinod Chouhan, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the respondents. l'F~"l sc»ae& // I Contempt Petition No. 90 of 2008 /VA5 r ORAL ORDER (02.12.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. The petitioners have filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents for the alleged non- compliance of the order dated 19 of April, 2007 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2411/2007. By the aforesaid order passed in W.P.(S) No. 2411/2007, the impugned order under challege in the writ petition was quashed and the petitioners were held entitled to regular pay scales from the date the same had been withdrawn by the impugned order. Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argues that since no payments were made as per entitlement held in the order dated 19 ofApril, 2007, therefore, the petitioners had to file this contempt petition. Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that after passing of the order by this Court in the writ petition, respondent No.3 wrote memo to the Director Tribal Welfare Deptt., Raipur, whereby it was informed that Rs.1,56,43,948/- would be required for making payments to the petitioners and similarly placed other writ petitioners in whose favour the orders were passed. He further submits that the same was done as sanctioned was required from the Gove'rnment to make such payment. He also submits that thereafter some allotment was received and Rs.81.55 lakhs have been disbursed in favour of the concerned employees including the petitioners proportionately and according to the affidavit filed by the concerned Secretary, balance of amount i.e. 77.27 lakhs is to be disbursed/distributed after the allocation is received in the supplementary budget. He refers to the counter affidavit of respondents 1 &3. I A perusal of the order passed by this Court would show that by the said order, the rights of the petitioners have been adjudicated and they were held entitled to regular pay scales from the date the same were withdrawn by the concerned impugned orders, which were quashed, but this Court did not issue a time bound directions to the respondents to make payment of arrears. In light of the above contents of the order passed by this Court if we examine the conduct of the respondents that they had taken steps for SSSf- ^, Contempt Petition No. 90 of 2008 obtaining allotment and sanction from the Government and they have disbursed major portion of the amount and are assuring that rest of the amount would be disbursed after allocation is received in the supplementary budget, it cannot be said that they have committed default in compliance of the order passed by this Court that too the willful default making them liable for punishment in contempt. At this stage Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this contempt petition with liberty to file another petition, if such an exigency arises in future or there is inordinate delay in payment of balance amount or the amount legally due to each of the petitioners as per order passed by the writ court. Permission granted. Accordingly, Contempt Petition No. 90/2008 is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour ofthe petitioners. Sd/- SunUKumarSinha Judge vatti 1