HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER Bfl Iffl; ^i Cpntemnt Petition (C) No. 82 of 2007 Dr. R.L. Pandey, S/o Late Shri S.D. Pandey, Aged about 56 years, Presently working as Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMNORS Vs. 1. Shri C.K. Khaitan, Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, State of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Shri Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, Special Secretary, Urban Administration and Developfflent Department, State of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) , (Contemot Petition (CivU) under Article 215 ofthe Constitution of Indiaread wlth Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971) APPEARANCE: Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (07.12.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. Petitioner, Dr. R.L.Pandey, has filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against respondents 1 85 2 for their alleged willful default in compliance of the order dated 13.6.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 490/2005. — *—'- This Court while disposing of W.P. No. 490/2005 'passed the following order :- . . "Having heard leamed, counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner has made representations regarding grant of higher pay scale in coinpliance of the Government Orders dated 17'11 March 1999 and 25-4- 2000 as mentioned in para-5.6 pf the petition, the petitioner is allowed to give fresh copies of those representations to the respondent No.l within 15 days and in turn respondent No.l to decide representation within a period of 3 months from today. With the direction aforesaid, fhe petition stands disposed of." Contempt Petition ('0 No. 82 of2007 Mr. Dadariya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when the order was not complied within the stipulated period, the petitioner had to file this contempt petition. A reply to the petition has been filed by respondent No. 1. After going through the contents of the reply as also Annexure- R/l, it appears that the representation of the petitioner was disposed of by the Government vide order dated 7th of Februaiy, 2008 and the same was allowed to the extent indicated in the order. Though there is some delay in coinpliance of the order dated 13.6.2006 passed by this Court but the delay caused in corapliance does not appear to be inordinate or deliberate on the part pf the respondents. In view of the above, particularly in view of the fact that the order has already been coinplied with, I deem it appropriate to drop the proceedings of contempt at this stage. Accordingly, Contempt Petition (C) No. 82/2007 is disposed of at this stage. ^^——<—— r" ' sd/- ;- \ SunnKumarSmha