^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (s) N0.129/2006 PETmONER RESPONDENT G.R. Chandra, S/o Late Shri D.R. Chandra, Aged about 43 years, Preseritly working as Assistant Grade-111, Office of the District Rehabilitation Centre, Bilaspur, Under Department of Panchayat &Social Welfare, R/o Pathak Bagicha, Jabdapara, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Shri R.C. Bansod, Joint Director, Panchayat & SociaiWelfare, Distrtet Office, Bilaspur (C,.G.) CONTEIVIPT PETITION UNDERARTICLE215 OF THE CONSTITUTSON OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Sameer Behar, Counsel for the petitioner; Shri Vinay Pandey, Counse! forthe respondent: ORALORbER (16.11.2609) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. Petitioner G.R. Chandra, who is working on the post of Assistant Grade-111 in the O/o District Rehabilitation Centre, Bilaspur, has filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of cQntemptagainst the respondent, who is working as Joint Director, Panchayat and Sociai Welfare, District Office, Bilaspur (C.G.), on the ground that he Contempt Case fs) No.129/2006. ^^ has not foliowed the order passed in W.P.(S) No.4451/2006 on 28.08.2006. This Court disposed ofW.P.(S) No.4451/2006 by passing the foflowing order: "Shri Sameer Behar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State on advance copy. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitloner has already made representation for consideration of his promotion, but respondent No.3- Joint Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, District Office, Bilaspur is not deciding the same, therefore, he be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner,towhich learned Government Advocate for the State has no objection. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent No.3 to decide the representation of the^petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from today. Certified copy as per rules." „ ths Learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that inspite of a clear direction to the respondent (respondent No.3 in the writ petition), he has not decided the representation filed by the petitioner and thereby, committed willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respondent referring to Annexure R-1 ^ submits that the ;;":~-—— r y^l Contempt Case (sl No.129/2006. ty representation of the petitioner has already been disposed of by the respondent on 27.10.2006. 1 have gone through the contents of Annexure R-1 . Annexure R-1 shows that the matter of promotion of the •i!petitioner was considered by the concerned authorities of the respondent and thereafter, some decision has been taken, which clearly means that the representation has been disposed of by the concerned authorities well within time. For the foregoing reasons; 1 do not find any merjt in the petition. The same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. | Sd/. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge shyna "\^-