Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bade Bhaiya Singh Thakur vs Shri Ghanshyam Soni on 21 June, 2021
Author: Nandita Dubey
1 CONC-797-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CONC-797-2021
(BADE BHAIYA SINGH THAKUR Vs SHRI GHANSHYAM SONI AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 21-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri U.S. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-
compliance of the order dated 29.9.2018 passed in W.P. No.23288/2018. It is
stated that despite the order passed by this Court, the same has not been
complied with by the authority concerned till date.
A perusal of the order dated 29.9.2018 shows that the petitioners had
filed a petition seeking benefits of second kramonnati on the ground that they
had completed 24 years of service and were entitled to get second kramonnati
from 19.4.1999 but the same was not granted to them, whereas the petitioner
No.2 was extended the benefit from the year 2012 instead of the year 1999.
In the said petition, the petitioners had annexed
applications/representations dated 16.7.2018 and 20.8.2018 alleging that these
representations were pending for consideration and a prayer was made that
the representations may be decided in view of the order passed in the case of
Prerna vs. State of M.P. in W.P. No.6773/2006 decided at Indore Bench of
the Court. On the basis of such pleadings, this Court has directed the
respondent No.5 and 6 therein to decide the pending representations of the
petitioners in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Prerna (Supra)
within a stipulated time and to extend the benefit if the petitioners are found
entitled to the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to Annexure C/2 as
the information which was forwarded by him to the respondents No.5 and 6
to decide the case as per the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition.
Annexure C/2 aforesaid reflects that the petitioner in his
representation/information has stated that the authority has issued an order for
Signature Not Verified
SAN
recovery of the amount in connection with the second kramonnati given to
Digitally signed by ASHISH KOSHTA
Date: 2021.06.21 17:02:22 IST
2 CONC-797-2021
him and further stated that the High Court has disposed of the petition by
directing the authority to decide the case within two months and refund the
amount along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. However, such a
direction was never given in W.P. No.23288/2018 nor the recovery of any
amount was the subject matter of the said writ petition. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has further pointed out Annexure C/3 which is a fresh
representation dated 16.2.2021 informing the authorities regarding the
aforesaid writ petition and the order passed in that.
It is clear that the petitioner has not communicated the order dated
29.9.2018 to the respondent authorities within a stipulated time rather he has
tried to manipulate the order taking its advantage by filing Annexure C/2,
hence no contempt is made out in this matter rather the petitioner is at fault
for not communicating the correct order to the respondent authorities.
Considering the aforesaid, this petition stands dismissed.
(NANDITA DUBEY)
JUDGE
ak
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHISH KOSHTA
Date: 2021.06.21 17:02:22 IST
