← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhCONT/568/2015disposed off

Milind Meshram v. Mr. Sukhnandan Prasad S.P. Banjare

2016-01-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 568 of 2015 • Milind Meshram S/o Late Ganesh Meshram, Aged About 51 Years Presently Posted At Patwari Halka No. 25, Jaroundha, Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, R/o Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Behind Doune Floor Mill, Magarpara, Bilaspur, Thana Civil Line, Tehsil, Revenue And Civil District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495001 ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Mr. Sukhnandan Prasad (S.P.) Banjare S/o Shri Vijay Banjare, Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Tahsildar Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, R/o In The Office Of The Tahsil Office Takhatpur, Belpan Road, Thana Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Mr. Ramsanehi Suryavanshi Aged About 50 Years Presently Posted As Konoongo, In The Office Of The Tahsil Office Takhatpur, Belpan Road, Thana Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .......... (Contemnors) ---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board By 12/01/2016 1.

The petitioner would complain that he has not been paid salary from February, 2013 to September, 2013, even though WPS No.2475/2013 was decided directing the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 31.07.2012 and 6/7.02.2013, whereby the petitioner was transferred from Jaroundha, Takhatpur to Bilha.

2.

Perusal of the final order dated 27.09.2013 would indicate that this Court has not passed any order regarding salary for the month of February, 2013 to September, 2013. Moreover, after this order, the petitioner has been allowed to join at Jaroundha and is receiving salary.

3.

At this stage, Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that by the interim order dated 10.09.2013, the effect and operation of the order transferring him to Bilha was stayed, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to salary from February, 2013 to September, 2013.

4.

Since the interim order was passed by a different Bench, the petitioner would be at liberty to move a fresh contempt petition, in accordance with law.

5.

In view of the above, the contempt petition stands disposed of with the liberty aforesaid.

Sd/- JUDGE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Nirala