Contempt Petltion No. 193 of 2007 Smt. -Swati Shrivastava W/o Rajesh Shrivastava, Aged about 34 years. Occupation- Service, Presently posted as Assistam Grade-III in Directorate, Higher Education R/o Sr. M1G-26 Kabir District'RaipLir(C.G.) ^UI , ip 1 K.D.P. Rao, Secretary-cum- Commissioner Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur(C.G.) 2 Smt. Jailaxmi Thakur, Additional Director (T) Directorate Higher Education Raipur(C.G.5 (Confempt Petition underArtJcle 21toft!ieConstitution ot read with Section 12 of the ContemDt of Courts Act) Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the petltioner. Mr. A.S. Kachhwaha, Advocate for respondent No.2. '7-li Heard. Petitioner-Smt. Swati Shrivastava has fiied this petition for inltiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents for the aEseged wiiifyi dlsobedience of order dated 6.8.2008 passed In W.P.(S) No. 4579/2007. \ '-^ f "\~^' S ^s ^-1^"1.^' t * The petitioner, who was working on the post of Asstt. Grade-lli in the Directorate Branch of the Higher Education Department, was transferred to the ColieQiate Branch vide order dafed 29.6.2007. This order was chalienged in the W.P.(S) No. 3925/2007. The aforesaid writ petition vvas disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.7.2007 in the follo'^'ing rnanner:- 'Be that as it may, learned counsel appearing ror the :nts/State submits that if the petitioner fites a ContemBt Petition No. 193 of 2007 representation before the respondent authority pointing out the defects in the impugned order, th.e same shall be considerea and decided, in accordance with law, within a period oftwo weeks. In vlew of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. However, the placement of the pefitioner shall not be disfurbed for a period or Swo weeks or ti'l dscision on the representation". n.a aa*f'ir1... ?,^v ET^ ^Ut. ^^g ^s.^''^^'', f4>»b | ;^ *^?, ^VTi ^^..|F*^ .^^-^kl l ^^i"*-^^I ^^b^ft* 4; ^^/J^ ?^/*4'^?^'i 4^1^ ^"^ .-'^. E-u Oj6%v ^nnvssxsva; i$smso COUHSBI TOF ins p6iiiion@r, <••> i ]:i'~,'.--i--t:*'''''~^ i'^.-^tr •"••^'i'>,v '^. :"'L i~'e^: :;'''t. .-"'•i' !"is' ^''^s: J3'F-'"L f'AiS'-''St^ ^i'i^-fiSiE* in £'h*:ia. •^•••','istui t.ftji'*!*' ^f5L{'i'^!i'"i.?°*i ssUDmi^s is^si sH@r psss^ HQ CL'.^na: STU['S;S%IU OIQS?S' En i;ii^ S@IQ wr'!i pg:iii!CHf s representation was fi!ed by the petitioner, but the same was dismissed by ths concerned suthority vide order dated 26.7.2007. Thereaftsr, since the petitioner was constrained to go to her transferred place, the pefitfoner had to fiie another writ iseiitior. bearing No. 4579/20!07 and in the said wrif petitio'n, it was directed on 6.8.2007 that in the meanwhile, She status quo i" re!ation to the posting offhe pefifioner, as it obtained on the said day, shall be maintained by the parties tili the next date of hesring. He submits that thereafter the petitioner had gone to join to the ComrnissEoner Higher Education on 9.8.2007, but she was not allowed to join, therefore, fhe petitioner had to file this contempt petition. On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, fearned counsel for responcient No.2, submits that the petitioner was already reiieved on 2.7.2007, therefore, the status of the petitioner on 6,8.2007 was as a rel.'eved employee fro:m the Direc-torate of Higher Education Department. Therefore, there is no vioiation of the order dated 6.8.2007. He refers Annexure -R-2/2. The contents of Annexure-R-2/2 would show that the petitionsr stands reiieved on 2.7.2007. in the facts and circumstances of the case, ! am not inclined 'to proceed further in this matter for intitiation of proceeding of contempt againsf the respondents. The petition has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. '——" c^ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Vrt^