•;,-..,^,^^,..=^^WWCTa>»^. 5° ^"7.;- HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR SB..JHON5BLE M1SHRA. J ContemptCase (CJviJ) No. 254 of 2009 ApDJicants 1, 3. Versus Non» AppSicants Contemnor Mahendra Kumar Gouraha, aged about 37 years, S/o Shri T.P. Gouraha, R/o KiIIa Ward, Juna Bilaspur, Near Radha Krishna Tempie, Bilaspur Anil Kumar Pandey, Aged about 39 years, S/o RK Pandey, R/o D-44 Vjjayapuram Cotony, Opposite Science College, Seepat Road, Biiaspur (CG) Mahendra Singh Soianki, Aged about 42 years, S/o Shri Baidau Singh Sofanki, R/o Devendra Nagar, Phase-1, Bilaspur(CG) iVi.K. Raut, Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Chhattisgarh, DKS Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (CG) D.K. Mathur, Under Secretar/, Department of Heaith and Family Wejfare, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Present: Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel for the appiicants. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counse! for respondent/contemnor No.1. Shri J.P. Shuk!a, counset for respondent/contemnor No.2. ORAL (6th July, 2010) The instant contempt petitlon has been preferred by the applicants with the ailegation that tho respondents have v^illfully violated the order dated 6th August, 2008 (Annexure-C/3) passed In WP(s) No.6529/06, wliereby' this Court, without going into merits ofthe ca.se, directed the Government to pass appropriate order on the fetter dated 1.7.2005 addressed by respondent- Universjfy in the petition. However, the same was not deci'ded by the respondent-University. Learned counsei for the appiicants submits that from perusai of the order by this Court, it would be-evident that the dlrection was to decide the lette.r dated 1.7.2005 sent by the respondent-University to She Hi'gher Education De{3artment of the State Government, whereas by the order -•f'\ I 1 VC?j 1;^>-V^.^"^' 2.5.2009, representation of the appilcants has been decided and that too, by the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State Government. On the other hand, fearned counsei for the respondent/contemnor NoJ argued that since the appiicants were working in CIMS, the memo of the Universlty for reguiarization oftheir services was considered by the Health and Family Weifare Department of the State Government and the same has been decided by a reasoned order vide Annexure C/6. Having heard iearned counsef for the parties, having gone through the order of Annexure C/6 and also considering the repfy ft'led by respondent/contemnor No.1, this Court is of the opinion that the djrectlons of this Court stand substantialiy compiied with. Though there is delay in compliance of the directions, however, the respondent/contemnor has aiready tendered unconditional apology for the same, which deserves to be accepted and is/accordlngjy. accepted. With the aforesaid obsen/atlons, the contempt proceedings are dropped and the instant petition stands disposed of. Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^