w?» 3‘}My} HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Contempt Petition No. 96 of 2008 CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Rahul Jha & Mr. Vinod Chouhan, Advocates for the petitioners. A Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (02.12.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. The petitioners have filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents for the alleged non- compliance of the order dated 19m of April, 2007 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2409/2007. By the aforesaid order passed in W.P.(S) No. 2409/2007, th impugned order under challege in the writ petition was quashed and the e APPLICANTS 1. Ramlal Ram, aged about 39 years, son of PETITIONERS Shri Budhuram working as Chowkidar, R/o. Gomharia, Tahsii and Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Nirmala Bai C/o‘ Late Mader Ram aged about 40 years, working as Waterman‘ R/o. MadhuvantoH, Tehsil and Distt. Jashpur (C.G;) Vs. NON-APPLICANTS 1. Shri MK. Raut. Secretary, Department of RESPONDENTS Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ‘ 2. Shri Durgesh Mishra, Collector (Aadim Jaii Kalyan Branch Jashpur, Tehsil and Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) at present posted at Ambikapur 3. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Rajput. Assistant Commissioner, Deptt of Tribal Welfare, Jashpur Distt.Jashpur (C.G.) wwm mmmmaWWWAW W we i u 2 w“ Contempt Petition No. 96 0f 2008 M3 petitioners were heid entitled to reguiar pay scabs from the date the same had been withdrawn by the impugned order. Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argues that since no payments were made as per entitlement held in the order dated 19‘“ of April, 2007. therefore, the petitioners had to file this contempt petition. Mr. Vinay Pandey, teamed counsel appearing on behaif of the respondents, submits that after passing of the order by this Court in the writ petition, respondent No.3 wrote memo to the Director Tribai Welfare Deptt., Raipur, whereby it was informed that Rs.1,56,43,948/— would be required for making payments to the petitioners and similarly placed other writ petitioners in whose favour the orders were passed He further submits that the same was done as sanctioned was required from the Government to make such payment He also submits that thereafter some allotment was received and Rs‘81.55 lakhs have been disbursed in favour of the concerned employees including the petitioners proportionately and according to the affidavit filed by the concerned Secretary, baiance of amount i.e. 77.27 iakhs is to be disbursed/distributed after the allocation is received in the supplementary budget. He refers to the counter affidavit of respondents 1&3. A perusal of the order passed by this Court wouid show that by the said order, the rights of the petitioners have been adjudicated and they were held entitted to regular pay scales from the date the same were withdrawn by the concerned impugned orders, which were quashed, but this Court did not issue a time bound directions to the respondents to make payment of arrears. in light of the above contents of the order passed by this Court if we examine the conduct of the respondents that they had taken steps for obtaining allotment and sanction from the Government and they have disbursed major portion of the amount and are assuring that rest of the amount would be disbursed after aliocation is received in the supplementary budget, it cannot be said that they have committed defauit in compliance of the order passed by this Court that too the willful defauit making them liable for punishment in contempt. At this stage Mr. Rahui Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this contempt petition with liberty to file another petition, if such an exigency arises in future or there is inordinate delay in payment of balance amount or the amount legally due to each of the petitioners as per order passed by the writ court Permission grantedt Accordingly, Contempt Petition No. 96/2008 is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioners. Stir/- Sanil Kumar Sinha uge Contempt Petition N0. 96 of 2008 Jd