IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CONTEMPT^^H3HQNI^b. t^ BILASPUR (C.G) OF 2011 (Contempt Petition U/S 12 of the Contempt of Courts Acts r/w Article 215 ofthe Constitution oflndia) PETITIONER Manoharlal Ramteke, aged about 35 <<L^^ years, S/o Shri Manokelal Ramteke, By .•<?^^^ Gccupation Peon, resident of Stationpara ..--^ ©Ber?efe y-:^^- •i?^^ ^•/"\^' CONTEMNERS : District ^l^. RESPONDENTS Ward No. 1, Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon (C.G) VERSUS 1. M. K. Rawut, Secretary, School Education Department, D.K Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) \^2^M.L.Sonwani, District EducationOfficer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G) CQNTEMPTP^nTIQNU/S 12 QF THE CQNTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 3iI^T^T^W ^IT 3^^T Sti*li<s»» m ^5 ^wwi dwic^ '3~ST ^i^Krj'M,. ^^ty^l^, f^n-Hy Co^- •<^,^(cj ^. ( ^s/^crl ( "t-"^200 3?i^T ^f^! (1^?^<<<SS?) wiraR^Ta^r SB : Hon'bleShri ManindraMohaliShrivastava, J. 25-08-2011 Shri Ashwani Shukla, couns( Shri Shantanu Kumar, couns Heard. Learned counsel for the pet the petitioner was finally disposed Petition (S) No.2132 of 2005 giving competent authority with a claim of poticy of regularization dated OS\ respondents to consider the Cc respondent No.2 has passed an| representation has been rejected \AJ ground that services ofthe petitionc Learned counsel for respoj directed the respondent to decide submitted that respondent No.2 hs|s ground that the petitioner was terrlninated and therefore, his claim coutd n^ regularized in service pursuant to g< In the opinion of this Court, the order of the Court in taking a ] Therefore, 1 am not inclined to hot(g ^Rta^T 'WT^ff ^ f^St <P^^j< ^^tRTRT^T^T for the petitioner. ^l for respondent No.2. |tioner submits that the petition filed by |)ff vide order dated 15-07-2010 in Writ liberty to the petitioner to approach the jregularization, underthe govemment's 103-2008 and it would open for the ^e of the petitioner. However, the order on 12-07-2011, by which, his tthout proper consideration only on the has been terminated in the year 2000. ident No.2 submitted that this Court :he representation of the petitioner. He rejected the petitioner's claim on the from service in the year 2000, be accepted and he coutd not be (vernmenfs circular dated 05-03-2008. he respondent No.2 has complied with jecision on petitioner's representation. that by such an order, the respondent -FS/140—2/20?!—1,50,000. + <ST3C| ^i<4i(n<4, ^t^m^, toTR^; *<l^yi8 %»M9^» •^200 ^?T 'q^? (^^^) ^n^i^Tl^fw wff w^r^pri^ ^s Tumane ^ ^TTW^f^l 3T1^[ -2- No.2 has committed willful disobedi is therefore liable to be discha However, the petitioner would be at as may be available to him to asi 12-07-2011 (Annexure R-2). ^nce of the order of the Court. The rule i|ged and is accordingly discharged. |liberty to take recourse to such remedy ^ail legality and validity of order dated With the aforesaid observatio|n, the petition is finally disposed off. ^Rrf^ft^f ^H^if ^ f^^i <f^^R '^'^ffCT^ff^T Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge <IW<fl<( ^^ ^ull^, it'at'IWM—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000.