Ku. Pushpa Soni v. Shri R P Mandal

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 560 of 2019

1. Ku. Pushpa Soni, D/o Shri Ramdayal Soni, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village - Harhethi, Post - Portha, Tahsil - And Police Station Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Shri R P Mandal Secretary, Department of Forest Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Shri Rakesh Chaturvedi, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Aranya Bhawan, North Block Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Shri Ramakrishna, Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Janjgir Champa, Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

4. Shri M. R. Sahu, Forest Range Officer, Forest Range-Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ........Respondents For Applicant :

Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. Advocate Gen.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 14.10.2019

1. The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the Order dated 11.01.2019 passed in WPS No. 194 of 2019.

2. The respondents have now entered appearance and filed reply, along with the reply, they have produced document Annexure R-1 dated 14.08.2019; whereby the claim for regularization of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner/applicant does not fulfill the conditions stipulated in the circular dated 05.03.2008.

3. At this juncture, the counsel for the applicant submits that there is an admission on the part of the respondents that the petitioner/applicant has already put in more than 10 years of continuous service since 2007 and this itself was sufficient for regularizing the services of the petitioner/applicant.

4. Further, the contention of the petitioner/applicant is that, the respondent authorities have not dealt with the judgment of Tukararam and Narendra Kumar Tiwari passed by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court respectively.

5. Having gone through the reply of the respondents, this Court is of the view that since there was a specific direction to consider the case of the petitioner/applicant and take a decision on her claim for regularization. The respondents having considered and having rejected the same. Rightly or wrongly the respondents have taken a decision.

6. In view of the fact that, they have taken a decision, this Court is of the opinion that the contempt petition no-longer survives. The respondents have in-fact complied with the order passed by this Court. In case, if the petitioner/applicant is aggrieved with the subsequent decision dated 14.08.2019.

7. The right of the petitioner stands reserved to challenge the same by way of a fresh proceeding. Reserving the said right of the petitioner/applicant, the present Contempt Petition stands disposed-off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul