IN THE HIGH COHRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR ~~w^ J? CONTEMPT PETITION No. /2005 PETI'iB'IONER ^•Smt. Madhuri Yadav, W/o.ShriS.N. Yadav, Aged about 42 years, 1- : , ^ Occupation-Service, R/o. Rajendra Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (G.G.) .RESPONDENTS CONTEMNORS ^- •^^ *"'0(bvN'v.-i' ^ ^s^^k -^uc.-a; VERSUS 1 dtfitendra Kumar Gupta, S/o.Unknown, ^. _ . . _ ".'. ,vA" The Assistant Conmu-ssioner, Tribal Development Department, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 2. Lalit Kumar Baghel, S/o.Unknown, Block Education Officer, Tribal Development, Block Lohandi- guda, District Bastar (C.G.) f^P^.jl Yugal Kishor Sharma, S/o.Unknown, 'A^J Z^ Block Education Officer, Block Bakawan, Distt.Bastar (C.G.) ^:e?^i€« CONTEMPT PETTION U/A.215 OF THE CONSTITUTIONR/W SEC.10&12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT -h XI-HC-22 SIlt^'TO K;-<i?b 3ilt?I wqwgre?! ^eg '^Tpn?ra, 0!f1ti<i5, Poii-M'p <*wi<lt4'H '•iiiifiiTf'fs'st tr"i*sci< ^? sdiaTT aii^r 02.12.2005 Shr-rAdiok Kumar Shllkla for Heor'd. This contempt petition filed the petitioner. [>y the|»titionercomplains-that orderdnted 24.08.2005 passedby has nQt^beencompltedwith. Ac^ording is Cpurt in W.P.N0.28Z8/2005 petitioner was posted at the or direction of this Court but he ^ording to the petitioner, the ginol place of posting -as per |ios not'been paid any salary thereCTfter. Order dated 24.08.20(p5 is very cleor which directs as under; "In view of the aboi cir'cynistances. which indicafes have not ensured that the placeitfhere there isvacancy,| (Annexure P/l) ond order d4l P/2) are stcyed. till the'next petltioner is permitted to jc|in posting tilt any other wde!f petitigner at appropFiate placj \fe stnted focts and the that rthe respondents jietitipner shbuld join at a Ithsorder dated 13.8.2004 jted 14.10.2004 (Annexure <tqte of hewing and thft jin at the original pldce of ^- is passed to post the The order was complied witl^ fo the effect that petitioner was permitted tojoin dt theorigin^Iplaceofpostirgand he.is still working at the same place. There (»as nb direction with regnrd to .[TN^:^f^ •* XI-HC-22 •Tiq•^[raRpT,'a3t9r(®,fawi'yy \? inii^Traiiich '^ 200 sn^i^i . ij?73n^i ^•4 ^f?CS 3n^tWi[w<ifOT ^.2- cM*il<n<ilTi 'Wf^f ^ 1^1^ <^i^k ^? sv^f s^v ^- .. . Iwn'L v any other grievance, as such, th sustainable. Ih view of the foregoing, the dismissed. Noorderosto costs. s contempt petition is not Betition deserves to &e and is Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ['q^^iT^ "fe,