IN THE Hl(3H:COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) Contempt Case (Q No. /°^ /2010. ^'& (Arising out of grder dated 19.03.10 passed in writ petition (S) No-f4329/2009 by Honlsle High Court.) PETITIONER: ^Smt.Radha Bai, wife ofDevnath Singh ^,. ^ / ' Chouhan, aged about 40 years, Head C^" Mistress, Primary School Farsakani, ^y^^^ r ^ Block Kunkuri, District Jashpur, ^ ^a*'a'" . ^^ °'p. J^< ^^y.-^ ^«^-^~ ^v^..^ ^ ^ ^"" fS^" 'ir- Respondents: (Contemnorsl: Chhattisgarh. Versus 1. R.P.Mandal, Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Dr.B.S.Anant, Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Dr.Lalit Shukla, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh Presently Posted as Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4. Dhani Ram Bhagat, Block Education Officer, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (^ CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTI01L 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTSACT. The petitioner most humbly begs to submit as under:- ^ y/ s '^-•^s^ 1 ^^yP^ ^- I-HC-22 3TT^T^T [<vli<=h 3T[^T 5^^i^ ^f$a ^^r -^{pn^zr. ^Til^^^ f^ray ^RI^IClT Sh^scts 3ff^?r ^^K ^....(^nt.:...^..^^/^ ^ •fe^ST' ST^T'^H^T'Hf^ SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohah OS-01-2011 Shri C.J.K.Rao, counsel for tl1e petitoner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, coun^el for the r^pondent No.3. Leamed counsel for the p^titioner submite that on 19/10/2010, a communication has been received ^hich shows that in pyiported compliance of the order of this Court, respond^nt No.3 has informed ttie petitloner with regard to his representation that r|ecessary corrwtions in service records would be made, and in case, the p^titioner is found ©ligjbleand suitabte, he would be considered for promotioi contempt by not passingthe appropi steps have been taken pursuant 10/7/09, respondent was directed t4 period of six weeks from the date ofl that after that, in compliance of communicated to the petitioner withj chl14?<rl<iflrl 'HTR^lf ^ 'f^t iFsi^K '^3^m3n^r Shrtvastava. j. to Upper Division Teacher and ottier consequential benefits would also b^ granted to him. However, those benefits tifl ciate have not been given. He s^bmits that in view ofth®order passeci by this Court on 19/03/2010, the respor^dent authority was under an obligation to extencf necessary benetits to e p^titioner and even though assurance has been held out, necessary ordere ha|/e not been passed. He subroits that the respondents have disobeyed the ortier of this Court and thus committeGt the iate order. On the other hand, submissicjn of teamed counsel for respondent No.3 js that vide order dated 19/03/201$, in the light of his submissjon, that no |o order dated 9/7/09 and report dated take steps and pass appropriate orders jn accordance with law as expedftiously as possibte, preferably wtttin a receipt of copy of the order. He submtts order of this Court, the authority has regard to ite decislonto make nec^sary corrections in the service records <^n the basis of availabte material and to [^ '^^ ^'.^^h. .fi' "_ 1. ,1 ^^S?>,4-HC-22- ^<^^^£d^''.^ ;s '%.. ^-? 3TI^T^T R-ii<=h sniRT ^RWTrfi^ Deeptt ^^r ^i^id^i, ^•d1yji<o, f^cni-Hy 3TT^T 'q=ra? ...6^.:.^..^..fc).^0 \W]Q 200 WWTT^i^l^ -^ 200 'fSR^T' 'SIT^F'^RTISP: Trfin ~-5- take steps. He submits that this ^mounts to compliance of the order passed by this Court and if the petitioner i^ benefits due and available under i^ to the petitioner after filing of the that the communication regarding Chl^f<y1<flr1 "HR^ff ^ 'fe^ <F3l<^I< ^ ^ri^W 3TI^T found eligible, he would be granted all the iW. Though, it appears that contmunication dated 19/10/10 has been made contempt petition and it is also very clear ^uch decision does not show the exact dav which such a decision in favour of|the petitioner has been taken, Considering that the petitioner has been comn|iunicated the decision of the authority and contemnor has sought uncondition|al apology, ruie js discharged. Learned counsel for the pe1|itioner submits that the authority should be directed to extend benefit pursuaitit to decision as communicated vide letter dated 19/10/2010 at the eariiest, a^ much time has elapsed. Let necessary steps as completed within a period of three| this order. ^tated in tetter dated 19/10/10 be now months from the date of receipt of copy of tt is made clear that if the 01dder of thi the time stipulated, serious actio| officials. this Court is not cornplied wrttih within n would be taken against the concemecl Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [-xft^ ^f^^