HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (C» No. 45/2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Avinash Kumar Gupta, aged about 25 years, S/o Shri Kedar Prasad Gupta, R/o Post Sitapur, Tahsil Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G). Vs. 1 Shri S. Minj, Secretary, Panchayat Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G). 2. Shri Dhananjay Dewang^n, s/o Shri M.C'. Dewangan, Chief Executive .Officer, Zila Panchayat, Sarguja, District Sarguja (C.G). 3. Shri Roop Kumar Tiwari, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OFL COURTS ACT 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Prateek Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. QRALORDER (25.02.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, Heard. Petitioner Avinash Kumar Gupta has filed this petition for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for the alleged default in compliance ofthe order dated 09.10.2009 passed in W.P(S).No.5898/2009. This Court while issuing the rule against the respondents passed the following order on 09.10.2009. "Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not submitted any forged docunient. Even .on enquiry, it has been found that the documents submitted by the petitioner are not forged. Despite that, the respondent authorides have adopted a veiy unusual method of asking for a consent letter ). from.the employees statipg that the employee has /^ filed forged doCuments, but no FIR may be lodged. Contemot Case CC). N0. 45/2010 In default, the employee may be liable to be dismissed from service. Issue notice to the respondents, in accordance with rules. In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner." Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent/authorities are not giving salaiy to the petitioner which amounts to violation ofthe order dated 09.10.2009. Learned counsel, however, is not able to demonstrate as to why the salary of the petitioner is not being paid to him. There may be inany reasons for non-payment of the salary to an employee by the employer as the payment of salary is subject to the law relating to it. We note that the aforesaid interim order was passed by this court in light of the submissions inade by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not submitted any forged document for appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi and even on enquiry it was found that the documents submitted by the petitioner were not forged. When the counsel for the pedtioner submitted that despite that, the respondent authorities have adopted a method of pressuring the petitioner and it was also expressed that the First Information Report may also be lodged. It is in that context, the order dated 09.10.2009 was passed and it was directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petidoner. In the aforesaid background of the facts, if the grievance of the petitioner is that the salary is not being paid by the authorities, no proceedings can be drawn against the authorities taking it to be violadon of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. For fhe foregoing reasons, I do not find any good ground to procee'd in the matter of contempt against the respondents. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha judge Rao