Gangadhar Jangde v. Mr. Ajeet Basant,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT. NO. 943 OF 2021 • Gangadhar Jangde, S/o Late Shri Butari Das Jangde, aged about 28 years, R/o Village- Bijabhata, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1.

Mr. Ajeet Basant, Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 2.

Mr. Satish Pandey, District Education Officer, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board [13/12/2021] 1.

The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the Order dated 10.9.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.4782/2021.

2.

The Petitioner herein was the Intervener in the said W.P.(S) No.4782/2021 which was originally filed by one Shri Rajendra Kumar Jangde aggrieved of the Order dated 5.8.2021 whereby the application for grant of compassionate appointment filed by Shri Rajendra Kumar Jangde stood rejected.

3.

The Petitioner herein had intervened in W.P.(S) No.4782/2021 with certain objections to the relief sought for by Shri Rajendra Kumar Jangde. While setting aside the earlier Order dated 5.8.2021 and remitting the matter back to the Authorities concerned, this Court vide Order dated 10.9.2021 had granted liberty to the Intervener to approach the State Authorities with his objections for ventilating his grievances. 4.

It has been now informed that the Authorities have intimated the Petitioner/Intervener that he is not entitled for compassionate appointment and his application has been rejected for reasons mentioned therein. It is this Order which according to Petitioner/Intervener amounts to contempt of this Court.

5.

This Court is of the firm view that the present Contempt Petition as such is not maintainable, for the reason that no contempt whatsoever prima facie has been made out against the Respondent Authorities so far as the Petitioner/Intervener is concerned. The Petitioner/Intervener was not either the Petitioner or the Respondents to the original proceeding. The original Writ Petition was challenged by some other person against whom there was an order passed by the State Authorities. The only relief that the Petitioner/Intervener was granted by this Court was to ventilate his grievances by raising objections before the Authorities concerned. If the Authorities have considered the objections and rejected his claim, the same by no stretch of imagination can be brought within the ambit of contempt of Court. It would be a fresh cause of action. 6.

In view of above, the present Contempt Petition being not maintainable deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ Judge