'J {>^1' BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMFT CASE (C) N0. ^ ^l /2010 PETITIONER z^^v-; .<^ c...-n ^-<\St Anita Bai W/o Shri Dhaniram aged about 38 years, Caste-Mahar, IJ^^S Vft^~ ....--"2> l^ ^.s" ^ R/o ViUage- Mujgahan, Post- Pinkapat, P.5.- Devri, Tehsil- Daiindi Lohara, District-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT/ CONTEMNOR Kalpana Mandami/ Project Officer, Ekikrat Bal Vikash Pariyojana, Daiindi Lohara, District-Durg (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR INITIATION OF CONTEMPT FROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. ContBmpt Case(C)N0.251/2010 Petjtjoner Resoondent Contemnor Anita Bai Versus Kalpana Mandami (Application for initiation of Contempt Proceedings against the respondent under Section 12 of the Contempt ofCourts Act and under ArticSe 215 of the Constitutlon of India) Present: - Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Tripti Dewangan, counset for respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 21 ^1-2011) Heard. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of ora'er dated 09-06-2010 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.2622 of 2010. 3. Learned cpunsel for ths petitioner submitted that the order of termination from service was challenged before this Court and after hearing, this Court passed an order directing status-quo as it obtains on the date of the order to be maintained. It is further submitted that the status which existed on the date of order i.e. on 09-06-2010 was that the petitioner was still continuing in service and the order of termination has not been given effect to. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this fact is clearly established from document- Bank Deposit List (Annexure P-2) showing payment ofsalary to various employees, which shows that the petitioner has been paid salary for the month of June and July. The petitioner has placed on record ttie documents pertaining to |i? ^ssssa^ % |sl ^sigS^I, B "'^ ^ ,»-jy l63'"^' - '2- reports in Form-1(A) (Annexure P-4 & P-5) for the month of September prepared and submitted by the petitioner in the office which shows that the petitioner was continuing and worta'ng in the office. Learned counsel further invited attention of this Court to Annexure P-6 which is a document certified by Up-Sarpach which shows that the petitioner remained present till 25 September, 2010. In his submission, the aforesaid documents and cireumstances clearly established that though the petitioner was atlowed to continue in view of the status-quo order passed by this Court, suddenly from the month of August, salary has been stopped and thereafter the documents which were submitted by the petitioner in the month of September were not accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this clearly shows that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the order of status quo passed by this Court on 09-06-2010. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that one Smt. Deo Kala Sinha filed a petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.697 of 2004 and that petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 31- 03-2010, by which, termination order of Smt. Deo Kala Sinha was set aside and an application was moved by Smt. Deo Kala Sinha before the Project Officer on 15-04-2010 and thereafter on 19-05-2010, the Project Officer passed an order posting Smt. Deo Kala Sinha as a Aanganbadi Worker at Aanganbadi Centre Mujgahan, Block Dondi Lohara, District Durg and the present petitioner was also informed that her services have been terminated but she was not available. and therefore, order of termination was affixed in the house of the petitioner. A letter was sent to Project Officer on 20-05-2010 informing that the petitioner was not available for service of order of termination. It is submitted that the respondent/contemnor has joined on 26-08-2010 and as Smt. Deo Kala Sinha was to be posted in compliance of order dated 31-03-2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.697 of 2004, the respondent only sought to comply with the order -3>- passed by this Court in that writ petition without there being any intention to disobey the order passed by this Court on 09.06-2010 in W.P.(S)No.2622 of 2010. Learned counset for respondent submitted that the answering respondent in view of the two orders passed by this Court has allowed Smt. Deo Kala Sinha to join, and therefore, under these circumstances, non-payment of salary to the petitioner was not an act of willful disobedience. 5. From the averments made in the reply, it is found that the factuat averments made in the petition that the petitioner was continuing in service and was working and also paid salary as reflected from document Annexure P-2 and worked as reflected from document Annexure P-4 & Annexure P-5 is not denied. There is no denial that the petitioner was working and she was paid salary even after the order passed by this Court. It however appears that the respondent authority under a notion that in comptiance of order dated 31-03-2010 passed in W.P.No.697 of 2004 as Smt. Deo Kala Sinha was required to be posted, instead of passing any specific order, the petitioner's salary is not being paid and creating obstruction in performance of the duty of the petitioner. Though the act ofthe respondent amounte to disobedience of order dated 09-06-2010 passed by this Court, considering the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that the authority had acted in this manner on the understanding that she is r?quired to comply with the order dated 31-03-2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.697 of 2004, it does not appear to be a case of witlful disobedience with an intention to flout the order of this Court. Therefore, t am inclined to discharge the rule issued against the respondent. However, it woutd be appropriate at this stage to clarify that therespondent authority is under an obligation to comply each and every order passed by this Court and further, as the petitioner has been continued in service and paid salary, the order of status ^ '^'•-.••y' ^ quo passed on 09-06-2010 is required to be complied with in its spirit unless the same is modified or other orders were passed in the case. 6. Accordingly, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge