Chattisgarh High Court
Khitesh Kumar Minj vs I. K. Gohil on 7 February, 2023
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CONT No. 661 of 2022
Khitesh Kumar Minj Versus I.K.Gohil & Another
07/02/2023 Heard Mr. K.N.Nande, learned counsel, appearing for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned senior
counsel, assisted by Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel,
appearing for the respondents.
Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 07.12.2022, Mr.
I.K.Gohil, Chairman, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Raipur
(respondent No. 1) and Mr. Vishnu Prasad Agrawal, Regional
Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Raigarh (respondent
No. 2), are present.
By the order dated 07.12.2022, this Court had initiated
contempt proceedings.
It is brought to our notice that against the order dated
07.12.2022, a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.
2079/2023 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, on 03.02.2023, dismissed the said
Special Leave Petition. The order dated 03.02.2023 reads as
follows:
"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly
dismissed.
Pending applications stand disposed of."
On the very date of dismissal of the special leave petition,
an order was issued purportedly appointing the petitioner as
Office Assistant on provisional basis.
The order of this Court dated 24.02.2022 was specific to
the effect that the petitioner shall be appointed on compassionate
ground within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of the
judgment.
It is not understood that why the word 'provisional' has
been inserted in the appointment order dated 03.02.2023.
Mr. Bhaduri and Mr. Gohil submit that they will delete the
word 'provisional' and a fresh appointment order will be issued
deleting the word 'provisional' and regularly appoint the petitioner
on compassionate ground and that the same shall be done within
a period of two days from today.
Mr. Nande submits that there was also a direction to ensure
payment of any other amount which fell due on the date of death
of Smt. Prafulla Minj i.e. the mother of the petitioner. It is also
submitted by Mr. Nande that an amount of Rs. 63,023/- on
account of computer increment was not paid to the petitioner and
a false statement has been made by the respondents.
In the return filed by the respondents, in paragraph 16, it is
pointed out that all the dues payable to the deceased mother of
the petitioner had been paid and there is no other amount which
is liable to be paid. Perusal of the said paragraph further goes to
show that a contention is advanced that the mother of the
petitioner was not eligible for grant of computer increment.
As there is some dispute with regard to the entitlement of
the mother of the petitioner to computer increment, we are of the
opinion that the petitioner will have to establish in an appropriate
proceedings the entitlement of his mother to computer increment.
Therefore, for the purpose of the present contempt application, in
absence of any claim made by Mr. Nande with regard to any
other payment, all dues shall be considered to have been paid.
List this case on 10.02.2023 at 01:10 pm.
On the said date, the respondents No. 1 and 2 shall remain
present in person.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N.K.Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Amit
