\,^^^'W\1\J'^^-^^^J^"J"^"U^'U' S^Ms :^m'\^'^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^. 313 /2010 Contemot Case No. /2010 (Arising out oforder dated 07-04-2010 passed by Hon'ble'Division Bench of Justice Shri I.M. Quddhusi 85 Hon'ble Justice Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra in Writ Appeal No.35/08) •"r'ft*>-t.i.-. %^<.. APPLICANT [PETITIONER^ ^^ RJl.N»: PtWrtfcl^ ••^""'i'A*"^T 'o^'l"2-' RESPONDENT [NQf^APP^ ^<v>1^?n?n&>"2<, »fltt4.........^..".i.^-^7T""* Muktipad Ghoshal, S/o late B.N. Ghoshal, aged about 64 years; Retired Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, R/o J/8, Parijat Colony, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS N.K. Oswal, Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION-10 OF -^^ (^ v CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT^_1971 (f®.n=J, |J ^^fz:rwy-^-s^l^T^ :|WI^I;R.. fc;^ : mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BIIA8PUR /^\ S.B. : HOBPBLB SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA. J. Contempt Case <q No.313/2010 PBTmONBR Muktipad Ghoshal RESPONDBNT Versus N.K. Oswal Petltton u/Article 215 of the Coirtltution of India r/W Sectlon 10 of the ContemDt of Courte Act. 1971 Appearance: Shri Anand Dadariya, counsel for the petitioner. Stiri Sumesh Baje^, counsel for the respondent. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedonl l.02.2011) Heard. 2. This contempt petiition has been filed by fhe petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 7.4.2010 passed in W.A. No.35/08. 3. Leamed coiinsel for the petitioner submitted that in the writ appeal, the Court set aside fhe order passed by leacned Single Jude and disposed off thc appeal with direction to the State Govemment to consider the case of tihe petitioner for kramonnaU i and take a decision as early as possible preferably within a period \ i of two months from the date of production of a copy of fhe order before fhe Secretary Water Resoiirces Department Thereafter, a -2- ^\ M [M% r.l' ^:- ..^ representation was made by fhe petitioner and a copy offhe order was submitted to the Principal Secretaiy of the concemed department vide letter dated 24.4.2010. 4. Leamed counsel for the petltioner submits that the respondent- authority initially did not decide the matter of fhe petitioner within the time stipulated by fhe Court and later on, order has been passed after expiiy of time allowed by the Court, on 10.1.2011, by wtrich the case offhe petitioner has been rejected on the recommendations made by the Engmeer-in-Chieft He submits fhat in the writ appeal, the Court has taken note of (tie fact that one similarly situated employee-Bir^idra Pal Singh, Assistant Sub-Engineer, has been granted fhe benefit of kramonnati with effect fix>m 13.5. 1999, who was also punished with the petitioner and whose one increment with cumulative effect was also withheld. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that fhe respondent aufhority was, fherefore, under a duty to consider these aspects also before rejecting the case of the petitioner and by not consideraig all those aspects of tlie matter, (he respondait has committed willful disobedience of fhe order passed on 7.4.2010 passed by this Court in writ appeal. \ 5. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondent submitted \ that at the time when the representation was submitted ty the petitioner on 24.4.2010, respondent was not posted aad working ^fw%. » ''^e^. ^..<^ " li -3- df as Secretaiy of fhe concemed department The respondent came to be posted as Secretaiy of fhe Department on 27.11.2010 and when he enquired about pending cases of vanous Courts and when he leamt about the order passed by fhis Court in the present case, he ensured that the claim of the petitioner is decided as soon as possible. Thereafter, the opinion of the Engineer-in-Chief on fhe claim of the petitioner was called, wherein, Engineer-in-Chief opined that the entitlement of fhe petitioner for krcunonnati is only from 13.5.2003 and therefore after taking into consideration the said opmion, representation of the petitioner and avaUable records, respondoit came to fhe conclusion fhat ttie petitioner's representation is not liable to be accepted and has, therefore, been rejected. It is submitted that the respondent cannot be held responsible for the delay in decision ofrepresentation, because the respondent has m fact decided fhe claim of fhe petitioner within a period of less fhan 2 monfhs from the date of his posting as Secretary of fhe Water Resources Department. 6. In the contempt petition, fhe petitioner has not stated as to who was fhe Secretary, who was posted at the time when (he representation dated 24.4.2010 was submittal in tihe department In the contempt petition, bald allegations have been made that the respondent has not decided the representation of the \ \ petitioner even after expiiy of fhe period stipulated by fhe Court. i There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve what has been r' -4 m / ^ stated on affidavit by fhe respondent fhat he was posted in the Department on 27.11.2010. The decision in the case of the petitioner has been taken on 10th Januaiy, 2011 i.e. within less than 2 monttis" period of his posting. 'nierefore, on fhat count evcan tf there is some delay caused in the decision of representation, fhere is no material for tliis Court to hold respondent liable for such delay. 7.1n ftie writ appeal, fhe Gourt took into consideration fhe statement made in fhe retum by ftie State-respondent as also noted the fact that one similarly situated employee who was also punished wifh the petitioner and whose one increment with cumulative effect was wifhheld, was granted benefit of krcimQnnati with effect from 13.5.1999. Taldng note of the stand taken by fhe respondent in the retum and fhe aforesaid fact, fhe Appellate Court directed fhe case of the petitioner to be considered. I do not find fhat there was any spedfie direction by fhe Court to the respondent to grant krcanonnati to the petitioner on the grounds of parity. May be, that fhe respondent, while deciding the case of the petitioner, has not specificalfy adverted to fhe situation, in my opinion, this may arguabty be a case of discriminatory tFeatment However, it is difficult for this Court to hold that this amounts to \ willful disobedience of tihe order of this Court. The Court had only directed fhe respondent to consider fhe case of the petitioner and take a decision. Iffhe petitioner is a^rieved with fhe decision, he shall always be at liberty to take recourse to remedy as may be r-r - .^^-:.^:. ry t^ / •^ '-^^^ 1^^? -5- ^ Praveen avaUable to him under the law. However, in view of the aforesaid discussions, I am not inclined to accept fhat the respondent has committed any willful disobedience or has in any manner acted in violation of fhe order passed by this Court OR 7.4.2010 in W.A No.35/08. 8. The nile is ftierefoi^ dischai^ed and the petition acconlingly dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge