← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhCONT/989/2019disposed off

S. L. Markam v. Amitabh Jain

2019-12-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy1 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (C) NO. 989 OF 2019 S.L. Markam, S/o Late Shri A.L. Markam, aged about 57 years, presently posted as Executive Engineer in the office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Public Works, Nirman Bhavan, Atal Nagar.

... Petitioner versus 1.

Amitabh Jain, Additional Chief Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (CG) 2.

D.K. Agrawal, Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Nirman Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondents :

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 19/12/2019 1.

Shri Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the Respondents, submits that the order has since been complied with and he is filing the copy of the relevant records during the course of the day itself. 2.

Let reply be filed by the Respondents during the course of the day itself. 3.

Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that subsequent to the order passed by this Court, the Respondents have taken a decision to regularize the suspension period of the Petitioner between 21.8.2012 to 10.4.2013. Likewise, the increment for the year 2005 also has been ordered to be released. So also, the Petitioner has been released with the benefits of the Sixth Pay Commission. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submits that, as regards the claim of the Petitioner for grant of time pay scale, the Committee found the Petitioner not eligible for the same and has rejected the said claim of the Petitioner vide order dated 13.12.2019.

5.

In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court is of the opinion that the order of this Court stands duly complied with. However, if it all, if the Petitioner is aggrieved of any subsequent development or action of the Respondents, he would be at liberty to challenge the same by way of a fresh writ petition.

6.

Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of and the Respondents are discharged from the contempt proceedings.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ JUDGE