1 2025:CGHC:1672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 980 of 2024 1 - Smt. Rekha Patel W/o Shri Vijay Prakash Patel Aged About 61 Years R/o Chhota Bazar, Chirmiri, District Korea, Presently R/o Civil Lines, Manendragarh, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Firoz Khan S/o Shri Iqbal Khan Aged About 44 Years R/o Chhota Bazar, Chirmiri, District Korea, Presently R/o Sarkari Dafai, Chhota Bazar, Chirmiri, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners/Applicants versus 1 - Shri Siddharath Komal Pardeshi Secretary, Department Of School Education Dks Bhawan, Mantralaya, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Divya Mishra Director, Public Instruction, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri Rahul D. Venkat The Collector, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shri Ajay Mishra District Education Officer, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioners/Applicants : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 For Respondents No.3 & 4 : : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate Ms. Akansha Jain, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 10/01/2025 1. This Contempt petition has been preferred by applicants under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.01.10 18:40:08 +0530 2 1971 for non-compliance of the order dated 02.2.2024 passed in WPS No.494/2012. 2. This Court has passed the following order in WPS No.494/2012 in para 9, annexed as Annexure-C/1:- “9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the impugned order/letter dated 3.12.2010 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter of appointment of the petitioners. If the petitioners are found working in the school as Teacher, their salary for the said period be released as per rules and if the petitioners are found eligible, they be treated as Assistant Teacher from the date of their initial appointment and granted all consequential benefits. All this exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The writ petition thus stands allowed to the above extent.” 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that, in order under contempt, this Court has categorically considered that appointment of petitioners were approved by the Deputy Director, Education, despite that, vide Enquiry Report (Annexure-R/4-1) and order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure-R/4-4), respondent N.4 has passed the order that applicants are not eligible for appointment, therefore, they have been decined to grant any benefit violating order under contempt dated 02.2.2024. 4. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 & 4 would submit that, in compliance of the order under contempt dated 02.2.2024, detailed enquiry was conducted and vide Enquiry Report (Annexure-R/4-1), the Committee has submitted report stating inter alia that appointment of applicants have never been approved by the concerned authorities, as such, 3 based on aforesaid report, final order Annexure-R/4-4 dated 17.12.2024 has been passed and applicants have been declined to grant any benefit. 5. Perusal of order under contempt shows that, in operative part of the order, this Court had directed respondent authorities to conduct the detailed enquiry into the matter of appointment of applicants and if they are found working in the school as ‘Teacher’, then they be provided appointment and consequential benefits. Vide Annexure-R/4-1, respondent authorities have conducted discrete enquiry, and on the basis of that Enquiry Report, order Annexure-R/4-4 dated 17.12.2024 has been passed by respondent No.4. In that Enquiry Report, it has been reported that appointment of applicants has never been approved by the concerned departmental authorities, therefore, applicants/petitioners are not entitled to grant any benefit. 6. Perusal of aforesaid two documents clearly shows that, the order under contempt has been complied with by respondent authorities, therefore, no contempt of impugned order is made out, as such, this contempt petition is dismissed. 7. If applicants are not satisfied with the order passed by the respondents with regard to their Enquiry Report (Annexure-R/4-1) or (Annexure-R/4-4), then such fact gives fresh cause of action to the applicants, it could not be termed as non-compliance of order passed by the Court. Therefore, they may take recourse to law for redressal of their grievance, if the same is available to them. 8. Accordingly, the instant contempt petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar