Narayan Singh v. Shri Jai Singh Mahsake

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 789 of 2019 • Narayan Singh S/o Late Tilak Ram Aged About 47 Years At Present Range Office Doundi Working At Office Of Assistant Range Office Kuwagondi, Post Doundi, Tahsil Doundi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Shri Jai Singh Mahsake Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Shalini Raina Chief Conservator Of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. S.S.D. Badgaiya Conservator Of Forest, Durg Circle, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

4. Dharamsheel Ganvir The Divisional Forest Office, Durg Division, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

5. Satovisha Samajdar The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh

6. Devendra Singh Nagesh The Forest Range Officer, Forest Range Doundi, Forest Division Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh

7. M. Govind Rao S/o M.S. Rao Retired Forest Divisional Officer, Balod Division, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Dharampura, Radhaswami Satsang Chowk, Pani Tanki, Pan Thela Ke Pas, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 :

Shri S. Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondent No.3 :

Shri Suyash Dhar, Advocate S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 18/10/2019 This petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of

the order passed by this Court on 19.07.2017 on the submission that despite there being a clear direction that the entire period during which the petitioner remained out of employment shall be treated to be in service, while considering petitioner's claim for regularization, the authority has recorded a finding that the petitioner has failed to prove that he continuously worked against sanctioned post from 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997.

2.

This Court, while passing order dated 19.07.2017, granted benefit to the petitioner to the extent that the period during which he remained out of employment upon termination until reinstatement by the order of the Labour Court shall be treated to be as period spent in service and nothing more. There is no finding that the petitioner worked against sanctioned post nor is there any finding that he continuously worked on the post from 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997. The period for which the petitioner has not been found to be continuously working is other than the period which has been directed to be treated as period of service by order dated 19.07.2017 in the Writ Petition (S) No.3162 of 2017. Therefore, no contempt is made out.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the petitioner actually worked continuously against sanctioned post between the period 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997. This aspect cannot be gone into the contempt petition. The petitioner's remedy lies in taking appropriate remedy in another Forum. 4.

With the said observation, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- ( Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ) Judge Deepti