Bhagwan Das And ORS. v. Dr. S. Bharti Dasan And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 90 of 2014 1.

Bhagwan Das S/o Kusum Ram Panika Aged About 21 Years Sweeper, Primary School Chitkahipara, Kota, Tah. Ramanujnagar, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2.

Shiv Prasad Singh S/o Vifal Ram Aged About 28 Years Sweeper, Govt. Primary School, Uraopara, Kota, Tah. Ramanujnagar, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3.

Puranjan Ram S/o Kashiram Aged About 26 Years Sweeper, Govt. Middle School Chitkahipara, Kota, Tah. Ramanujnagar, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1.

Dr. S. Bharti Dasan, Collector, Tribal Development, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2.

Kumar Singh Aged About 50 Years Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3.

Phul Singh S/o Nohar Say Aged About 40 Years Head Master, Primary School Chitkahipara Kota, Post- Patna, Tah. Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4.

Shivlal Singh S/o Astbar Say Aged About 45 Years Head Master, Middle School, Chitkahipara Kota, Post- Patna, Tah. Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5.

Nirmal Prasad Singh S/o Sukhlal Singh Aged About 38 Years Head Master, Primary School, Uraonpara Kota, Chitkahi, Post- Patna, Tah. Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) _______________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate ________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.12.2021 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 2.

This contempt petition is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 26.09.2012, whereby this Court had passed an interim order to

the effect that the process of selection shall remain stayed and the petitioners, if not already terminated, shall be allowed to continue in service until further orders.

3.

The case projected by the respondent is that much before the interim order was passed, the petitioners were terminated on 12.07.2012 and 25.08.2012.

4.

Mr. Shukla submits that he has got instruction not to press this application as the writ petition having been allowed, all the petitioners were reinstated in service.

5.

In view of the above submission, the contempt petition is not pursued any further and the same is closed.

Sd/- (Arup Kumar Goswami) Chief Justice Chandra