^ \^> \6 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (C) No. 43/2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Baijnath Prasad Gupta, aged about 22 years, s/o Manmohan Prasad Gupta, R/o Village Guturama, Janpad Panchayat Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G). Vs. 1 Shri S. Minj, Secretary, Panchayat DepartaJient, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G). 2. Shri Dhananjay Dewangan, s/o Shri M.C. Dewan^an, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Sarguja, District Sarguja (C.G). 3. Shri Roop Kumar Tiwari, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Prateek Sharma, counsel for the pedtioner. ORAL ORDER (25.02.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J, Heard. Petitioner Baijnath Prasad Gupta, has filed this petition for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for the alleged default in compliance ofthe order dated 24.09.2009 passed in W.P(S).No.5592/2009. This Court while issuing the rule against the respondents passed the following order on 24.09.2009. "Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not submitted any forged document. Eyen on enquiry, it has been found that the documents subnutted by the petitioner are not forged. Despite that, the - \ respondent authorities have adopted a very unusual method of asking for a consent letter from the employees stating that the employee has . \ filed forged documents, but no FIR may be lodged. Contempt Case CC). N0. 43/2010 In default, the einployee may be liable to be disraissed frora service. Issue notice to the respondents, in accordarice with rules. In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the pedtioner." Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent/authorities are not giving salaiy to the petitioner which amounts to violation of the order dated 24.9.2009. Learned counsel, however, is not able to deinonstrate as to why the salaiy of the petitioner is not being paid to him. There may be many reasons for non-payment of the salary to an employee by the eraployer as the payment of salary is subject to the law relating to it. We note that the aforesaid interim order was passed by this court in light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner fhat the petitioner had not submitted any forged document for appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi and even on enquiry it was found that the documents subniitted by the petitioner were not forged. When the counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite that, the respondent authorides have adopted a inethod ofpressuring the petitioner and it was also expressed fhat the First Information Report may also be lodged. It is in that context, the order dated 24.09.2009 was passed and it was directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against fhe petitioner. In the aforesaid background of the facts, if the grievance of the petitioner is that the salary is not being paid by the authorities, no proceedings can be drawn against the authorides taking it to be violation of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any good ground to proceed in the matter of contempt against the respondents. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge