HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Contempt Case (Cl No. 59 of2010 APPLICANT Petitioner NON-APPLICANT Brij Bihari Dubey, S/o. Late Shri Medini Prasad Dubey, aged about 65 years, R/o Akharabhantha, Saktj, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS Ram Kumar E3ewangan, aged about 58 years, son of Late Krishna Dewangan, R/o. Near Balany Chowk, Mungeli, District Bilaspur. At present Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika, Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OEJNDIA Appearance: Mr. S.C. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate for the respondent. ORALORDER (19.07.2010) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. Heard. The petitioner had filed W.P.(S) No. 641/2009 for payment of his retiral dues. On 17th September, 2009, the said petition was disposed of by passing thefollowing orders :- "2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitjoner is entitled to total sum to the tune of Rs. 34,256/-. However, having regard to the financial condition of the respondent, liberty may be granted to pay in three monthly installments. He further submite that the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the delayed payment of amount. 3. In view of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 4. In view of the foregoing, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. It is expected that Ihe respondent may pay the retiral dues to the petitioner, as above.in three monthly installments, with interests @ 6% p.a. However, it may not be treated as \ precedenf. x ContemptCase IC} No. 59 of 2010 Mr. S.C. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that since the order passed by this Court was not complied with, therefore, the petitioner had to file the contempt petition. Mr. P.K. Patel, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submrts that Municipal Council. Sakti has paid Rs.20,000/- on 7.4.2010 and Rs.5,000/- was already paid vide invoice and order dated 26.11.2009. Therefore, in this manner a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been paid. He submits that as per instructions, the remaining amount is Itkely to be paid within two months. His submission is that there is sufRcient compliance of the order passed by this Court, therefore, the contempt petition may be dropped. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particulariy the circumstance that a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been paid by the Municipal Council and Mr. P.K. Patet is submitting that the Council is inclined to pay remaining amount within two months, lam ofthe opinion that there is sufficient compliance of the order passed by this Court and it does not appear that the authorities concerned have committed wilfful disobedience. In theabove facts and circumstances, 1 do not deem it appropriate to proceed further in the matter. However, it is expected that the remaining dues would be paid within the said period, as expressed by Mr. P.K.Patel. It is further observed that if the grievance of the petitioner still remains after the expiry of the aforesaid period, he would be at liberty to file another petition for the appropriate relief. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^i^