IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR -<^s^-^. ._. ... ^ -,0 CONTEMPT flETT^M (C) N0. 33^ Qp 2011 v^ PETTTEONER q ^..^ 1 Smt. Shashi 6upta W/o Shri Sushil Gupta, aged about 51 years,R/o Mungeli Naka, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (C6) ^ .^''..^ .^<y^<^' ^.^'.^""~^°)r 2-'Smt. Vinodani bubey,W/o Late '^^.^^ o' V0) 1*.\ RESPONDENTS Shri Chandra Mohan Dubey,aged about 48 years.R/o Bus Stand, Infront of Geeta Hotel, Nirala Nagar Bilaspur (C6) 3- Smt. Shobha 6upta,W/o Shri Durgesh Gupta, aged about 47 years, R/o Near Gayatri Mandir, 3 street, vinova Nagar Bilaspur (C6) (All working as Lecturer in Lal Bahadur Shashtri Muncipal Higher Secondary School, Sanichari, Bilaspur (C6)) Versus Shri Yashwant Kumar (IAS) {age and father's name not known to the petitioners, Presently posted as Commissioner, Muncipal Corporation. Bilaspur (C.6.) fwi- /.". s"? ^ A CONTEMPT PETETEON UN&ER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTCON OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1971. Oj^ •^\ "%i lp-HC -HC—78 SII^I W W\* wn 3)1^1 si>t<i<ti *i!*i^(r^i<n«ii 7ST '^irqT?PT, ®ti1'a<l(o,fa<^iy^< ..<^^.;..^<..(^...^..^§//( W^( -T5R7 (T^p^q) TOTOR'(te sn^i fSB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Bllohan Shrivastaira, J.] 29.9.2011 Shri Arvind Knmar Dub^y, counsel for the petitioners. Heard on admission. Dhe date Leamed coiuisel for petitioners filed a writ petiticjn the post of Lecturer from fhe and fhe sald writ petition W^L! 29.3.2006 passed in W.P. No|. petttioners submits fhat in Coi-irt, the respoiftlent is obli^ pay on the post of Lectnrer wi^ It is submitted that even made by fhe petitioners to fh^ order of fhe Court has not beeln The writ petition filed terms of the order dated 29.3 Therefore, the petitioners chl^fell'f '^TTO^ff ^f 'fe1^ {.pal^K ^sifiraan^T petitioners submits that fhe claiming benefit of pay-scale on of promotion and other benefits ts allowed in terms of order dated .4003/03. Leamed counsel for tbe co^npllance of fhe order passed by fhe ;d to pay fhe dlfference of salary of PI efiTect from the date ofpromotion. the representations have been respondent-aufhority, till date, the complied with. thojugh by fhe petitioners was aUowed ia 1.2W6 passed in W.P. No.4003/03. are entitled to the beneflt flowins from the order. More fhan 1 year has elapsed, but fhe order of the Court has not been complied with. Even if no tiune limit has ^ -F •f3"^ iS £• (". '^aw "te.^-"^®'' XI-HC—78 '3'sr •^ITq^Tq, eiitfly'lii, rs(dl-LI^ <fmTTTai*<|c<l 3T!"^I ^WF (Tjqtg^iET) 311^1^1 Wl* ^an sn^?T *^ic?> | TOITOt ^fCT CT^I ?..- ^ Praveen dt been flxed, fhe compliance o: deferred indefirutely. In case the respondent benefits, to whlch fhe petiti(|>ners passed by fhe Court within a| of receipt of copy of thls Cour(:, to approach fhis Court agaui. does not pass any order extending are entitled undw the order period ofone morrth fi-om the date t, fhe petitioners would be at Uberty With the aforesaid disposed of. ^raf^^'f ^w^il' ^f f^st <f^^T< ^Tsjfgtisn^T fhe order of the Court cannot be ob|servations, fhe petition is finaUy Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge