RAMNARESH DWIVEDI v. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELD LIMITED
CONT/355/2025 · 2025-03-20
Shri Arvind Kumar Verma
Contempt Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11427 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11427 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:13431
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 355 of 2025 1 - Ramnaresh Dwivedi S/o Kamla Prasad Dwivedi Aged About 70 Years Retired Employee Of Secl, R/o Devgawa Near Arjhula Colony, Post OfÏce- Kudri, P.S. Khairha, Tahsil Budhar, District- Sahdol (M.P.)
... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through Its Managing Director, Headquarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
--- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Roshan Kumar, Adv. For Respondent No.1 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Adv. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 20 .03.2025
1) The instant contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner herein, alleging non-compliance of this Court’s order dated 11.04.2023 passed in WPS No. 3264/2017. The operative part of which is being reproduced hereinunder:-
3. Considering the fact that against the order dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure P/5), the petitioner has a remedy of filing appeal before the appellant authority under Payment of Gratuity Act.
4. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of. In the eventuality of filing of appeal within 45 days, the delay in filing the appeal on the count of pendency of this writ petition before this Court will not come on the way and the Appellate Authority shall decide Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.03.22 11:20:25 +0530
2 the case on its own merit, without being influenced by the order of this Court. 2) On perusal of the order of this Court, it appears that there is no order passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also not filed appeal under the payment of Gratuity Act 1972 before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no willfull disobedience of the order of this Court. 3) Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the competent authority.
SD/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge Jyoti