1 2025:CGHC:11738 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 307 of 2025 1 - Ram Narayan Nag S/o Shri Kuntalal Nag Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As Assistant Fisheries Officer North Baster Kanker District - Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (Petitioner) Intervener No. 2 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri N.S. Nag Director Directorate Of Fisheries Indravati Bhawan 4th Floor B- Block Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) (Contemnors) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For intervener/objector : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 10/03/2025 1. The instant contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner herein, against the order dated 18.10.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No. 673/2024 by this Court. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Fisheries filed writ appeal assailing the 2 order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2669/2014 (Savitri Luxmi Chandrakar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge with direction to the respondent authorities/appellants herein to issue appointment order in favour of the writ petitioners and appoint them on the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer from 7.08.2014, the date when other similar situated candidates were appointed on the said post. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 18.10.2024, set-aside the observation made by the learned Single Judge and the authorities were directed to reconsider the case of the writ petitioners along with all other persons, on their own merits. The petitioner is intervener in the above writ appeal and they were aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2023, if the writ petitioner has been granted appointment order to the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer from 7.08.2014 and the consequential benefits will be given from the above date of appointment i.e. 7.08.2014. The intervener filed representation on 20.12.2024 for compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench. The respondent issued a letter on 15.01.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents are deliberately disobeying the order passed by this Hon’ble Court by way of not considering the case till date and thus committed the contempt of this Hon’ble Court. 3 4. Learned counsel for the intervener contended that the petitioner has filed the present contempt seeking compliance of the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 673/2024. It is the case of petitioner that the said order has not been complied with by the respondent and therefore the present contempt petition would lie before this Hon’ble Court. He further contended that the present contempt case has been filed with ulterior motive by the alleged intervenor before Hon’ble D.B. who is neither affected by the said order nor is the beneficiary of the order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The State has filed an appeal against the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the Single Bench in WPS No. 2669 of 2014 which was allowed and disposed off by the Hon’ble Division Bench by its order dated 18.10.2024 para 11 which is as under: “11. In view of the above, the observation made by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order at paragraph 7 to the extent that ‘the respondent authorities are directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioners and appoint them on the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer from 07.08.2014, the date when other similarly situated candidates were appointed on the said post’, is accordingly set aside and the authorities are directed to reconsider 4 the case of the writ petitioners along with all the other persons, on their own merits.” 7. The present petitioner has filed the instant contempt petition stating that the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has not been complied with. 8. The present applicant was neither the petitioner nor the respondent he was the intervener in the W.A. No. 673 of 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein contended that respondent has passed the letter on 15.01.2025 which violates the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 673 of 2024. Learned counsel for the objector contended that there is no willful disobedience of the order of this Court. He further contended that letter dated 15.01.2025 was issued in light of judicial proceeding in the WPS No. 7734 of 2024, WPS No. 7754 of 2024 and WPS No. 7821 of 2024. 9. Having considered the aforesaid contentions of the counsels, having perused the orders of passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, I found that this Court has directed the respondent/State to reconsider the case of the writ petitioners along with all the other persons on their own merits. Therefore, there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 10. However, if the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed by the said order passed by this Court, then it is the right of the petitioner to assail the order passed by the respondents in an appropriate proceeding. 5 11. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings against the respondents is hereby closed and the present contempt petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima