High Court Of ChhattisgarhCONT/87/2017dismissed

Chandrashekhar v. D. Shrinath

2017-03-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 87 of 2017 Chandrashekhar S/o Late Heram Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o VillageRalia, Tahsil- Katghora, Post- Mudhali, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

D. Shrinath Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gavera Area, Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh .................(Contemnor) ---- Respondent For Petitioner :

Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate S.B.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 28/03/2017 Heard.

1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in petitioner's case and another connected case vide order dated 15.07.2016.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court had directed the respondents to examine petitioner's claim for grant of employment in lieu of acquisition of land as per the order passed by this Court on 23.07.2015 in the case of Ku. Rattho Bai and Anr. Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors. in WPS No.432 of 2011. It is submitted that the spirit of the order was that while considering the claim for employment of land oustees, policy of the State Government should be taken into consideration, but, while deciding the matter, the authority has distinguished the case from that of Ku. Rattho Bai (supra) and decided case of the petitioner relying upon the policy of the State of Chhattisgarh as also policy of SECL/Coal India Limited, which amounts to willful disobedience.

3. After having gone through, by which, the petitioner's claim has been rejected. I find that the authority has considered the claim of the petitioner on its own understanding of the order of the Court and has recorded reasons why he did not find the case of the petitioner similar to that of Ku. Rattho Bai (supra).

-24. Irrespective of whether the decision is correct in understanding and perspective of the earlier order, I do not find that the authority had any intention of flouting the order of the Court. It is different thing to say that the order does not correctly decide the issue and another thing to say that it is a case of willful disobedience.

5. Therefore, I find that it is not a case of initiating contempt proceeding. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order by which claim has been rejected, in independent proceedings.

Sd/-- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen