HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASEtC 1 N0.182 of 2009 PETITIQNERS £. A 8 ^. . \' _' Sukrit Das Manikpuri, Aged about 31 years, S/oShri Chudamani Das Manikpuri, R/o Village Ganiyari, Poliee Thana Kharora, District Raipur (CG) Smt. Leelavati Pathak, Aged about 29 years, W/o Shri Rajendra Pathak, R/o Village Godhanpur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) Praveen Kumar Pandey, Aged about 34years, S/o Shri Vidya Prakash Pandey, R/o Village & Post Sakri, District Bilaspur(CG) Om Prakash Singh, Aged about 24 years, S/o Shri Trilok Singh, R/o Mukund Bhawan, Baijnath Para Durg District Durg (CQ) AshokKumar Tiwari, Aged about 36 years,S/o Shri R.K. Tiwah, R/oStreetNo.13, Qr. No.2/C, Sector-11, Zone 1, Khursipar, Bhilai, DistriGtDurg (C.G.) Uday Kumar Shukla, Aged about 35 years, S/oShri Kedar Prasad Shukla, R/o Shakti Nagar, Post Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.) Akhand Dev Pandey, Aged about 30 years, s/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Pandey, R/o MIG- 47, Phase-11, Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Korba, DistrictKQrba (C.G.) AbhishekKumar, Aged about 23 years, S/o Shri Surendra. Pal Singh, R/o Street no.30, Qr, No.S/A, Sector-1, Bhilai, District Durg (GG) Lalit Kumar Bhuarya, Aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Leelaram Bhuarya, R/o Village Arajkiind, Poist Office Mahrum, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) i^.. •<- Contemut Case ("ONo. 182 of2009 10 Ramnarayan Netam, Aged about38years, S/o Shri Ratnu Netam, R/o Village Murkuta, Post Dagori, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 11 ShivnathShori, Aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Ganga Ram Sori, R/o Village Keshopur, Post Baloda, Thana Dondi Tahsil Balod District Durg (C.G.) 12 Ubhelal Mandavi, Aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Jhumuk Lal Mandavi, R/o Village Jantar, Post Office Kokpur, Tahsil Dongargaon, Rajhandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 13 DineshSingh, Aged about 25 years, S/o Shri Puhup Singh, R/o Village Kerijungera, Post Kodekasa, Thana Dondi Lohara, District Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 »t 7/ • / . : v Mr. M.W. Ansari, InspectorGeneral^Jail), Jail Head Quarter, Chhattisgarh, Raipur(CG) Dr. K.K. Gupta, Aged about 48 years, S/o Shri S.L. Gupta, Superinterident of Jail, Circle Jail, Dyrg(CG) CONTEMPTPETITIONUNDERSECTION120FTHECONTEMPTOF COURTSACTREADWITHARTICLE2150FTHECONSTITUTIONOF INDIA Appearance : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate forthe petitioners. Mr. Vivek Sharma,Advoeate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (04.0Z2010) SUNIL KUMARSINHA. J. He.ard. The petitioners have filed this petition for initiation of proceedings ofcontempt against the respondents for the alleged default incompliance pf the prder dated 27 .5.2009 passed in W. P.(S) No. 2695/2009. )S. ContemDt Case (QNo. 182 of2009 Thjs Courtwhile hearing theW.P.(S) No. 2695/2009 passed the following orderon 27.5.2009:- "27.05.2009: Shri Kanak Tiwari lelarned Sr.counsel with Shri Jitendra Pali counsel forthe petitioners. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days making the same returnable within six weeks. Meanwhile, parties are directed to maintain status quo as it exists today. List the case after service is effected." Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that on 27.5.2009, the petitioners were in services and their services were terminated vide order dated 2.6.2009 (Annexure-C/4), which was in violation ofthe order dated 27.5.2009. Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the order dated 27.5.2009 was communicated to the respondents on 3.6.2009i.e. afterpassing of the order of termination on 2.6.2009. He refers to the contents of Annexure-C/3, filed by the petitioners, which contains an endorsement of receipt on 3.6.2009. Me submits that as soon as this order came into noticeof the respondents, they started the procedure for restoration of the services of the petitioners which took some time and ultimately on 7.8.2009 the services of the petitioners were restored as it was on 27.5.2009. Therefore, there is no willful default in compliance ofthe order passed by this Court. It has not been disputed by Mr. Varun Sharma that the petitioners are working on their respective post since 7.8.2009. In view of the above, the explanation given by learnedcounsel for the respondents that due to non-communication of the order, fhe status quo as on 27.5.2009 was not maintained at once, appears to be reasonable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, partieularly the circumstance that after eommunication of the order, the services of the petitioners have been restored, 1 do notdeem it appropriate to proceed further in this matter for initiation of proceeding of contempt against the respotfdents. ~ . . Accordingly.the ContemptCase (C) No. 182/2009 is dismissed. •7:y-& iifSis:wsS}s£! Contempt CaseTC) No. 182 of2009 At thisstage, Mr. Varun Sharma submits that the petitioners have not been paid their salaries from the date of the termination till the date bf restoration of the services and a liberty may be granted for claiming the salary and monitory benefits ofthe said period in the pending writpetition. Such liberty from the contempt court is not required. The petitioners are free to take appropriate steps jn accordance with law. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge X ./"' ' ^ St. "'A' \- ^^•rt.^^nsasESmsESSST!^