High Court Of ChhattisgarhCONT/321/2016disposed off

Dilip Kumar Jawalkar v. Ganesh Shankar Mishra

2016-10-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 321 of 2016

1. Dilip Kumar Jawalkar S/o Shri Bhaskar Rao, Aged About 66 Years R/o Gali No. 4, Bangalipara, Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda, District Bilaspur ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Ganesh Shankar Mishra Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Mantralaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. B.K. Mohanty, Accountant General, Pagariya Complex, Pandari Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................(Contemnors) ---- Respondent AND CONT No. 322 of 2016

1. Basant Kumar Khandelwal S/o Satyanarayan Khandelwal, Aged About 66 Years R/o- Q. No. B/164, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Thana- Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Ganesh Shankar Mishra Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Mantralaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. B.K. Mohanty, Accountant General, Pagariya Complex, Pandari Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................(Contemnors) ---- Respondent

For Petitioners Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Adv. on behalf of Mr.

A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate For Respondent No.2 Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 27/10/2016

1. Heard.

2. These contempt petitions have been preferred alleging noncompliance of the order passed by this Court in WPS Nos.3035 & 3036 of 2015, by which, the orders passed by the Division Bench on 26.02.2015 in WA No.281/2013 and other connected appeals and in Review Petition No.61/2015 were made applicable to the petitioners' case and a direction was issued to the respondents to decide the petitioners' representations regarding pension of the employees of work charged and contingency paid establishment depending upon and after the outcome of Review Petition No.61/2015.

3. It is informed that as against the order passed in WA No.281/2013 read with the order passed in Review Petition No.61/2015, the State has preferred SLP(C) Nos.11541-11550 of 2016, which are pending consideration.

4. In view of the fact that the SLPs are pending, it may not be appropriate for this Court to initiate contempt proceedings at this stage.

5. Accordingly, both the contempt petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move again if the competent authority of the State Government does not decide the representations within a period of 03 months from the date final order is passed in the above mentioned SLPs.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Gowri