INTHEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR <^ ^ . -.. CONTEMPT CASE N0. z^OF2011 S^te Be??Qa PETITIONER gC^'' ..'S.'O^'' ^^^ ^° Rajesh Kumar Shrivastava S/o Shri P. L. Shrivastava, aged a'bout 49 years, presently working as Battery Atttendant (Samuha Paricharak), Panchayat & Social Welfare Deparraent 8s resident of Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENT/ CONTEMNOR P. K. Deepak, Deputy Director, Panchayat SE Social Welfare Deparment Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 10 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1971. FOR NON-COMPLIANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDER DATED 27-01-2011. PASSED IN M.C.C. No. 38/2011 - RAJESH KUMAR SHMVASTAVA VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS1 ^ I-HC—78 'S~£f ^liqKiq, dl-dly'ld, f«<C'tiyy __...<3?^-C^^fc9Kv,13S'/'< 200 aiTOl^lfrira' 'aqisii^ignk; Sn^ITraq? (•ijqf^q^s;) TOiIWHl?iI 3!I^I ^i-4t<rf41l ^iWv^i "^ 1^£t ^TaiRPTSO^I SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan IShrlvastava. J. 24.11-2011 Shri Prateek Sinha, counsel foi Shri Ajay Dwivedi, counsel for hteard. In the contempt petition, it is al Court on 27-01-2011 in M.C.C.No.3 with. Leamed counsel for the petit] petition filed by the petitioner, was d] 2010 with a direotion to consider pef 1 the petitioner, Ihe respondent. |eged that the order passed by this P of 2011 has not been oomplied ioner submits that earlier the writ ^posed of vcte order dated 09-08- ;itcner's claim within a reasonable period. As the petitioner did not rec|eive any intimation with regard to deoision on his representation, M.C.Cj; that no decision has been taken, evj therefore, speoific time limit has b^ made, earlier order was modified vid^ it was directed to consider the casel three months from the date of receit counsel submits that now in the repl^ order dated 12-10-2010 (Annexure him. Hesubmits that the said orde decided the olaim of the petitioner. h|l was passed by the Court, and even instructions on 19-10-2010, stating - considered for promotior^to the next| :. was filed by the petitioner stating sn after expiry of five months, and •en fixed. Considering the prayer order dated 27-01-2011, inwhich, of the petitioner within a period of >t of a copy of the order. Learned the respondent came out with an P-1), which was not served upon otherwise also does not properly e submits that the Deputy Direotor had sought instrudions and guklelin^s from the Director, after the order 1 ithough, the Director had given him |hat the petitioner is entitled to be |h@her post, his representation has 3i^^;^'!W wiw^iwtfe TumEme | ^ ^£(•^TqM?!, 'g-TTftPTC, tsTcTCTy ^snw^ftcfsn^r ('i?i;P^1 -1-- been rejeoted holding that there is held by the petitioner to the post in this manner, the order of the Q true spirit. (io scheme of promotion from the post df Assistant Grade III. He submits that ijiurt has not been complied with in its On the other hand, leamed] that even before the order was petitioner's representatbn was submitsthatthe petrt:ioner had a\s^ EfiPifet'Jh WS?ff 4 feZT ^R?f< ^i .'SR"'i 3)I^T lcounsel for the respondent submitted (jassed in M.C.C. on 27-01-2011, the pnatly decided on 12-10-2010. He received oopy of the same. Without entering into tl-|e other controvereies, taking into consideration that in compliance 09-08-2010, the representation t>f order was passed by this Court on of the petitioner was decided on 12-10-2010, even before the or<(er was passed in M.C.C. on 27-01- 2011, I am not inclined to proceejJ further in the matter. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by the saict ord^r dated 12-10-2010, it would be open for him to take recourse to suctl remedy as may be available to him under the law raising all contentio|is which are available to him, including what has been submitted before the Court. With the aforesaid obsejv^tjon, the petition is finally disposed ofF. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge r SIWStll ^*ISCT]»RT,WiFliSina—l'S/140—2/2011—1,50,000.