4^-t> 'fi^v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER Contempt Case fCS No. 287 of 2009 Manoj Joshi, S/o Shri C.K. Jc@hj, aged about 45 years, R/o Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENT Versiis Shyam Sunder Bajaj, Chief Executive Offteer, Naya Raipur Development Authority (N.R.D.A.). Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (Contempt Petition under Article 215 ofthe Constitutlon of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 18711 Appearance: Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate for the petjtjoner. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate forthe respondent. ORALORDER (22.01.2010) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. Heard. Petitioner, Manoj Joshi, who was working on the post of Revenue Inspector m Naya Raipur Deyelopment Authority (N.R.D.A.) was repatriated to the Revenue Department vide order dated 11 .8.2009. He challenged the aforesaid order in Writ Petttion (S) No. 4730/2009. The aforesaid writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 2.9.2009. This Court while issuing notjces to the respondents passed an interlm order in favour ofthe petitjoner in the following manner- "Issue nottee on this application also, as above. !n the meanwhtle, respondents are directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the petitioner and the petitjoner shall be allowed to work in his present place of posting". Thus, status-quo, In relation to the posting of the petitioner on 2.9.2009, was to be maintained. The petitioner has flled this contempt v.^^ Contenrot Case (0 No. 287 of 2009 petition alleging that the respondent has not compljed with the aforesaid order. On a perusa! of the contents of Annexure-C/5, jt appears that the petitioner was allowed to continue in N.R.D.A. office and in the said mannerthe aforesaid order was compiied. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitloner, submits that though the petitjoner has been posted in the same office and he was allowed to work in the same off'ce but the charge given to the petltioner earlier has now been changed. In Ijght of the order dated 2.9.2009 passed by this Court, it does not appear that such action ofthe respondent would amount to contempt. The order only says that status-quo as on the said date would be maintajned and it also says that the petiUoner shalt be allowed to work at the same place where he was posted on the sarcl date. The orcter nowhere prohibits the change of charge of the petitioner which atways can be done in administrative extgencles, public interest and for better functionjng of the department or an office. The interpretation gjven by Mr. Sharma to the order as above is totally misconceive. Since the petitioner is continuously worktng in the office of N.R.D.A., therefore. 1 do not find any reasons to proceed further in the matter. The petition has no merit, the same is liable to be djsmissed and js hereby dismissed. Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge v^