Smt. Prarthi Malvi v. Alok Awasthi (I A S)

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 589 of 2019

1. Smt. Prarthi Malvi, W/o Shri Manish Kumar Chandel, Aged About 36 Years, R/o LIG 493, Sector 7, Deendayal Awas, Mangla, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Pushpa Kuldeep, W/o Shri C S Kuldeep, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Tahsil Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

3. Ravindra Kumar Anant, S/o Late Shri Hetram Anant, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Flat No. I-36, Sector 1, Kashiram Nagar, Tahsil Raipur, Police Station:Telibanda, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Kamal Kumar Kaser, S/o Khageswar Prasad Kaser, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Kaser Para, Sakti Ward No. 2, Post Sakti, Tehsil: Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants

Versus

1. Alok Awasthi (I A S) Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Board, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Board, Mahatma Gandhi, Smriti Bhawan, Kankali Para Road, Sports Complex Premises, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondent For Applicants :

None For Respondent :

Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 20.12.2019

1. The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging noncompliance of the Order dated 07.01.2019 passed in WPS No. 8190

of 2018.

2. This Court had disposed-off the Writ Petition directing the respondents to ensure holding a review DPC at the earliest. The respondents have now come up with reply, whereby it has been intimated that firstly, the review DPC could not be held on the date of promotion in the light of the instruction of the State Government and secondly, they have passed an order dated 30.10.2019, whereby it has been specifically held that since there was no DPC prior to 2017, the question of holding a review DPC does not arise at all.

3. Given the said two orders passed by the Respondent No. 2, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 07.01.2019 passed in WPS No. 8190 of 2018 stands substantially complied-with. In case, if the petitioner has got any further grievance in-respect-of the promotion that he is entitled for with effect from the year 2018 ie., the date on which he became eligible for promotion, the same can be considered only under the writ jurisdiction and cannot be decided under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Reserving the right of the petitioners/applicants to avail other appropriate remedies under the writ jurisdiction. The contempt petition in its present form stands disposed-off at this stage. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Rahul