1 2025:CGHC:13018 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 349 of 2025 1 - Atul Sinha S/o Naresh Kumar Sinha Aged About 33 Years Earlier Working As Assistant Fisheries Officer In The Office Of Assistant Director Of Fisheries Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G.) Presently Working As Assistant Fisheries Officer In The Office Of Chhattisgarh State Sahakari Matsya Mahasangh Maryadit Demar District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Nikhlesh Ghritlahare S/o Maniram Ghritlahare Aged About 32 Years Presently Working As Assistant Fisheries Officer In The Office Of Assistant Director Of Fisheries Balodabazar District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... 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.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19/03/2025 1. The instant contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner herein, alleging the non-compliance of the order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No. 691/2024 by this Court. 2 2. Brief facts of the case is that the State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Fisheries filed writ appeal assailing the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2667/2014 (Devendra Kumar Sen 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 23.10.2024, 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 then 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 3 by way of not considering the case till date and thus committed the contempt of this Hon’ble Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The State filed an appeal against the order dated 19.10.2023 which was allowed and disposed off by the Hon’ble Division Bench by its order dated 23.10.2024 para 5 and 6 which is as under: “5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to W.A. No. 673 of 2024, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 673 of 2024. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed off in terms of the order dated 18.10.2024 passed in W.A. No. 673 of 2024.” 6. 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. 7. Since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of CONT No. 307 of 2025, this petition may also be dismissed on same terms. 4 8. Having considered the aforesaid contentions of the counsels, having perused the orders of passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is evident hat the facts and issue involved in this contempt petition is identical to CONT No. 307 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in CONT No. 307 of 2025. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings against the respondents is hereby closed and the present contempt petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima