Chattisgarh High Court
Khitesh Kumar Minj vs I. K. Gohil on 10 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CONT No. 661 of 2022
Khitesh Kumar Minj S/o Late Anjulas Minj, aged about 35 years, R/o Tahsil
Chowk, Bagicha, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. I.K.Gohil, Chairman/President, Head Office, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin
Bank, Sundar Nagar, Mahadeoghat Road, Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Vishnu Prasad Agrawal, Regional Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin
Bank, Regional Ofice, Sharda Niketan, Kabir Chowk, Heera Nagar,
Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. K.N.Nande, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate, assisted
by Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. N.K.Chandravanshi, Judge
Order on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
10/02/2023
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.
2. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 07.02.2023, 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.
3. This contempt application is filed alleging wilful and deliberate
violation of the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by this Court in WA No. 425
of 2001.
4. On 07.02.2023, the following order was passed by this Court:
"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."
5. Mr. Bhaduri submits that a fresh appointment order has been issued
on 08.02.2023 deleting the word 'provisional' and therefore, the order of
this Court dated 24.02.2022 has been complied with in its entirety.
6. Mr. Nande submits that he has received a copy of the fresh
appointment order dated 08.02.2023 wherein the word 'provisional' has
been deleted.
7. Having regard to the submissions advanced and in view of the
materials on record, this contempt application is not pursued any longer
and the same is disposed of accordingly.
8. Personal appearance of the respondents is dispensed with.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N.K.Chandravanshi)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Amit
