Smt. Chandrakiran Sinha v. Smt. Niharika Barik Singh, Secretary

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1040 of 2019

1. Smt. Chandrakiran Sinha, W/o Shri Nileshwar Prasad Sinha, Aged About 37 Years, Occupation- Feeding Demonstrator, ResidentPoshan Punarwas Kendra, District Hospital Dantewada, : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Satrupa Diwan, W/o Shri L. R. Diwan, Aged About 30 Years, Occupation- Accountant Cum Data Entry Operator, ResidentPoshan Punarwas Kendra, District Hospital Dantewada, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants

Versus

1. Smt. Niharika Barik Singh, Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Shri K.K. Motwani, Under Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Shri Neeraj Bansod, Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Dr. S.P.S. Sandilya, Occupation- In-Charge Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Hospital Dantewada, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicants :

Mr. Alok Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 :

Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Adv. with Mr.

Yogendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent 2 to 4 :

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A. General :

adfasf

-2Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 03.01.2020

1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging noncompliance of the order dated 27.08.2019 passed in WPS No. 6476 of 2019; whereby the representations made by the petitioners have been duly considered and after due consideration, the department has rejected the representations of the petitioners and also on reconsideration, the respondents have held that there is no necessity made-out for any change or modification to the order dated 07.08.2019.

2. Given the said facts by the counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that the direction given by this Court stands duly complied-with. If at all, if the petitioners are aggrieved of the subsequent decision of the respondents, they would be at liberty to challenge the same by way of afresh proceedings. The veracity and legality of the said order cannot be tested or reviewed by this Court it its contempt jurisdiction.

3. With the aforesaid liberty, the present Contempt Petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul