1 2025:CGHC:14229 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 377 of 2025 Anant Ram Pradhan S/o Shri Kirtan Pradhan Aged About 64 Years Retired Inspector At Gramodyog Chhattisgarh Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Board, Zila Panchayat Raigarh (C.G.) And R/o Village And Post Netnagar, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Yashwant Kumar Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Khadi Thatha Gramodyog Board Mahatma Gandhi Smriti Bhawan Kankali Para, Road, Sports Complex, Premises, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Contemnor) ... Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate appeared through V.C. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 25.03.2025 1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of order of this Court dated 30.09.2024 passed in Cont. Case No. 1106/2024 which is arising out of order dated 31.03.2022. Vide order dated 30.09.2024 this Court has passed the following order/direction:- “3. Considering the submission, it is directed that the applicant will submit the information with regard to the work done by him and if the records are not available, the applicant will collect information from the department and the department will also cooperate with the applicant and will not adopt any delay tactics in giving the desired information. 2 4. In the eventuality of submission of form in the prescribed format informing details of the work done by him, the Officers who are responsible for writing ACR will also consider the same within 15 days and thereafter ACR will be submitted to the Khadi Gramodyog who in turn will consider the case of the petitioner within further 30 days. 5. With this observation and direction, the instant contempt petition is disposed of . However, it is directed that the Officer who has to record the ACR of the applicant, shall not adopt any delay tactics, otherwise this court may take a serious view.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by this court has not been complied with. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that petitioner has not followed the order passed by this court vide order dated 30.09.2024 passed in Cont. No. 1106 of 2024 in para 3 and 4 where it was categorically stated that the petitioner will submit the information with regard to the work done by him and if records not available he shall collect the information from the concerned Department. However the petitioner has not supplied any information regarding the work done by him in order to proceed further to comply the order. 4. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties it is crystal clear that as per the direction of this court petitioner has not submitted any information with regard to the work done by him and he has not disclosed with the department whether the records are available to him or not. It is also clear that petitioner has not collected any information from the concerned department, therefore, at this juncture this contempt petition would not be maintainable to direct the respondent to comply the order passed by this court as per para 4 and 5 of the same order. 3 5. However, petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition if and when occasion arises. 6. Subsequently, the present contempt petition against the respondent is closed and is accordingly disposed of. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza