1 2025:CGHC:41398 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1294 of 2025 1 - Dudhnath Dhidhi S/o Late Roop Chand Dhidhi Aged About 36 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat - Kumhi Janpad Panchyat Fingeshwar District - Gariyaband (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Swapnil Dhruw Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar Dis- trict - Gariyaband (C.G.) 2 - Ghanshiram Markam Zila Panchyat Gariyaband, District- - Gariyaband (C.G.) 3 - Reena Dhruv Programme Officer Janpad Panchyat Fingeshwar , District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) Order on Board 18/08/2025 Shri Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Heard. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in WPS No.5880 of 2024 whereby following order was passed: “13. The competent authority shall now provide the petitioner an opportunity to represent against the ACR/PAR and based on the decision of petitioner’s representation the competent authority shall consider the issue afresh concerning continuation of contract 2 employment on the post of Rojgar Sahayak. It is made clear that there shall be no order as to the back wages.” Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that WPS No.5880 of 2024 filed by the petitioner was allowed and termination order of the petitioner dated 07.08.2024 was quashed directing the authorities to provide opportunity to represent against the ACR/PAR and based on the decision of petitioner’s representation the competent authority shall consider the issue afresh concerning continuation of contract employment on the post of Rojgar Sahayak, however, the re- spondent No.1 has passed an order on 06.05.2025 in which they have mentioned that WPS No.5880 of 2024 is dis- missed as withdrawn with liberty to move representation be- fore the concerned authority and further instead of giving ap- pointment to the petitioner for one year, he has been ap- pointed only for 89 days which is clear violation of the order under contempt and as such proceeding may be initiated against the authorities. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and pe- rused the material annexed with the petition. In the original writ petition the petitioner challenged his termination order dated 07.08.2024 from the post of Rojgar Sahayak in which after considering the entire facts and cir- cumstances of the case the coordinate Bench directed the authorities to provide the petitioner an opportunity to repre- sent against the ACR/PAR and based on the decision of 3 petitioner’s representation the competent authority shall con- sider the issue afresh concerning continuation of contract employment on the post of Rojgar Sahayak. After passing of the order dated 03.04.2025 the peti- tioner represented through his representation dated 17.04.2025 to the authorities and informed him about the or- der passed by the court. Considering the representation of the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has given appointment to the petitioner for 89 days on the post of Rojgar Sahayak under the terms and conditions mentioned in the order dated 06.05.2025. Though the respondent No.1 has mentioned in the order dated 06.05.2025 that WPS No.5880 of 2024 has been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move representation to the con- cerned authority, however, from perusal of order dated 03.04.2025 passed in WPS No. 5880 of 2024 it appears that the said writ petition was allowed and the petitioner was granted liberty to represent against the ACR/PAR. This court does not find sufficient ground to issue no- tice to the respondents as there is substantive compliance on the part of respondent authorities by appointing the peti- tioner for 89 days on the post of Rojgar Sayayak. There was no direction for the authorities concerned to provide appoint- ment for a particular period. It was for the authorities con- cerned to pass fresh order concerning continuation of con- tract employment of the petitioner on the post of Rojgar Sa- hayak. 4 Accordingly, no contempt is made out. The petitioner is having other remedy against the order dated 06.05.2025 if he is aggrieved of the said order. The contempt petition accordingly stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Inder