L-f J; p ^\ BEFORE THE HONBL HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR OWt^^. CONTEMPT PET fe NO. S'i i ^wi' Petitioner: ^.c; ^.. .. ^.--^r7 Hemraj Vaish'^-'A?' S/o Shri Madfeav Vaish^i ^s. Aged about 57 years, ^ Presently working as Dy. Collectgor, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG State. Versus Shri. Sunil Kujur, Secretaiy (Revenue) GOV. of CG DKS Bhawan, Raipur. CG State. PETITION UNDER SECTION 11 8s 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OP THE CONSTITUTON OF INDIA. -v^^y ^^v ' ' ^-''°v !SS6T' ...-•""" ,*%*••' Respondent/Contetnnor tlr; ssrK's.iSgsssssstsscssisssssswia^stsss^^sssesis^i •» J"^ ^7. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. PETITIONER RESPONDENT Contemot Case (Cl Np.255/2010 Hemraj Vaishya Versus Shri Sunil Kujur Petition under Section 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 r/w Article 215 ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearance: Shri K.R. Nair, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shrijith C.S. Nair, counsel for the respondent. ORAL- ORDER (PassedonSl.01.2011) Heard. 2. This contempt petition arises out of the order dated 30th June, 2010 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.798/05. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court, vide its order, had allowed the petition and the respondent-State was directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law for promotion to the post of Superintendent, Land Records, with all consequential benefits from the date juniors were considered and promoted. However, till date the benefits have not been given nor the petitioner has been considered for promotion y^-^^ /T1 ''*1 ^ iS'--—" i -2- i'-s •^ t-fc-.^"^ 'at-£^^y' over and above his juniors, though more fhen 6 months have elapsed. 4. On the other hand; learned counsel for the respondent, referring to the averments made in the reply, submitted that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the Collector, Raipur, vide its letter dated 27th November, 2010 has paid the cost to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 18fc August, 2010, the Under Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh in department of Revenue sent a special messenger for requisition of original records pertaining to DPC held on 10.5.1993. This was followed by another letter sent on 3rd November,2010, but the relevant records were not sent by the State Qf M.P. and that the respondent is raaking best of his endeavor to get those docurnents. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the attempts are being made to pass necessary orders at the earliest and the respondent has not committed any willful disobedience of the order of the Court. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the averments made and the documents on record, it appears that after the order was passed by this Court on 30th June, 2010, respondent authority has proceeded to take steps towards compliance of the order of this Court and it has been stated on affidavit that various requisitions were sent to the State of M.P. for maldng available the records so as to pass necessary orders in the case of the petitioner. -3- ^9. 6. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to accept at this stage that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the order of the Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the records is not available, the respondent authority should at least consider fhe case of the petitioner for ad hoc promotion or should proceed to pass the order of promotion without availability of the records, because this Court in its order dated 30th June, 2010 recorded fhat original records were not produced before the Court in spite of several opportunities granted and this Court has also granted liberty to the State to make appropriate enquiiy. 8. I do not find any such direction given by fhis Court in its earlier order to grant ad hoc promotion to the petitioner if the records are not available within any stipulated period. Therefore, the rule is discharged. However, respondent shall make all endeavour to pass necessary orders regarding promotion of the petitioner as directed by this Court earlier. 9. In case, the order of this Court is not complied with within a reasonable time, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach fhis Col-u-t. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge