Ghanshyam Yadav v. Surya Prakash Saxena

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Contempt Case (C) No. 4 of 2016

1. Ghanshyam Yadav S/o Shri Kashiram Yadav, Aged About 32 Years Working As Dress Grade-2, Primary Health Center, Ganiyari Post Ganiyari P.S. Kota District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Manharan Singh S/o Shri Maha Singh, Working As Dresser Grade-2, Primary Health Center Aamadand Pendra Post Aamadand, P.S. Pendra District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. Ram Singh Raj S/o Shri Charan Singh Raj, Aged About 42 Years Working As Dresser Grade-2, Primary Health Center, Darrighat, Post Darrighat, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Ramayan Prasad Sahu S/o Shri Paklu Ram Sahu, Aged About 50 Years Working As Dresser Grade-2, Community Health Center, Masturi, Post And P.S. Masturi District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

Surya Prakash Saxena , Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..........(Contemnor) ------Respondent For Petitioners:

Shri CJK Rao, Advocate.

For Respondents No.1 & 3:

Shri Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate.

Single Bench:

Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, J Order On Board 10.3.2016 1.

The present contempt proceeding has been preferred towards noncompliance of the order dated 17.7.2015 whereby the Respondent was directed to decide the representation of the Petitioners in accordance with law within a reasonable period.

2.

Notices were issued to the Respondent who, inter alia, entering appearance has filed his reply and has also submitted a document dated 15.10.2015 whereby, it has been reflected that the Respondent in the present

Contempt Petition, has acted upon the representation of the Petitioners and has recommended the case of the Petitioners to the higher authorities for an appropriate direction and the higher authorities also have ceased upon the matter for taking a final decision. So far as the act which was expected to be done by the Respondent from the documents enclosed along with the reply, it is reflected that the Respondent has promptly acted upon the directives given by this Court and has considered the case of the Petitioners and has also acted upon it by promptly recommending the case of the Petitioners for the relief sought for to the higher authorities and a final decision is yet to be taken by the higher authorities.

3.

In the light of the fact that the Respondent in the present Contempt Petition has complied with his past which was to be played by him in the opinion of this Court, no contempt is made our for calling upon the Respondent to the contempt proceedings.

3.

In case the Petitioners are still not satisfied with the action initiated by the Respondent, they have appropriate remedies to be availed before the appropriate forum.

4.

In view of above, the contempt proceedings are hereby dropped and the instant Contempt case is disposed and the Contemnors stands discharged.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Priya