i-'rfaS.^&kt.^y]:.^.: ^ INTHE-KUGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) Contempt Case (0 No. ^,2) /2011. .^- ^^gStT^ (Arising out of order dated 23.08.10 passed in writ petition (S) No. 4744/2010 by Hon'ble High Court.) PETITIONER: Respondents fContemnors) ^•'^. ^^^^y{ w^'°° Jaiprakash Jaiswal, son of Late Kalpnath Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 57 years, working as Assistant Grade-3 at Sub Divisional Office, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. Versus 1. Shri N.K.Oswal, Secretary, Transport Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..."" 2. Shri Mudit Kumar Singh, Managing Director Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporadon (Transport Department, Renuka Dwar nagar, Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Shri Surendra Kumar Jaiswal, Collector, Jashpur, Dista^ct Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. ^ -HC-22 sir^i'^i h-w* snt?i Sti^W <rf?fl r -s^ -i<|A|i<-i*i, ^TTly'ito, fticiwy 3n^?T xra^? _.^.tefc-.r.fete...K^_6 ^f /. \^ HFWil grHlch ^G^T' aii^i'^'iwgfer SB i^Hon'ble Shri Manlndra Dtohan Shriyastani, ^J. 25.2.2011 Shri C.J.K. Rao, counsef Heard on admissioa. Leamed counsel for th^ vide its order dated 23.8.20]10 disposed of the petition wifh| to consider claim of fhe submits that considering the would be attaining fhe age ol] also directed respondent to ofthe petitioner as early as p(j>ssible p^titioner tihis mdnfhs Leamed counsel for fh{ representation has been mape copy of fhe order passed by been taken even fhough 6 as this Court passed an orde^ possible, considering fhat thej respondents, in fhe spirit of decided the matter within a 'til'qlcl'il'l •qitRTi •?feA <r«l+d|< ^T sifigif sii^r for the petitioner. petitioner submits fhat this Court passed in W.P. (S) No.4744/10 direction to respondent-authorities for absorption. He further iubmission made fhat the petiftoner superannuatlon shortly, fhis Court decision with regard to fhe case ttee petitioner submits that fhough a to fhe respondent along with a Court, till date, no decision has have elapsed. He submits that for decision of the case as early as petitioner is golng to retire shortly, order of the Court, ought to have rtasonable time. fbe Vide order dated 23.8.(2010, fhis Court had directed fhe respondent to consider thej claim of fhe petitioner for his r^N; tfe" .^' ..'•?' an^rqir fe'iwan^r sb*iicti ^ff^a Praveea. •S^ -41'41d'4, »Til'y'l(o,fai'11-My 3^?r ira^ >i)t)?iT g»tiich '^ 3n^i?%iWHfei absorption and considerirfe petttioner is going to sup^ du^cted fhe respondent -aijit possible. idg fhe submission made that the iraanuate shortly, thls Court also aijifhority to take decision as early as Leamed counsel. forl petitioner would be attainin| June, 2011. the petitioner submits that fhe 'g the age of superannuation on 30th Consideration the superannuate shortly, fhis possible. Though no tiine Ui|i required to decide the possible. As no particiilar tu|[ I am not uiclined to issu^ However, liberly is reserved tf fhe respondents do not Court. With the aforesaid disposed of., ^]-4[<n41-i iTW^f ^ 1^c3t •d^l'RU ^T 3lf;gq 3TI^I fact tfaat (he petitioner is to |Coiirt directed decision as early as ii|iiit has been fixed, (he authority are as per fhe order, as earfy as limit has been fixed, at fhis stage, notice to any of the respondent. f.o (he petitioner to revive the petition t^ke dedsion as per the order of fhe lUii maltter tulae o|bsenrations, fhe petition is finally Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge fTTT3 tfeq