1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1351 of 2025 1 - Lalita Dubey W/o Himanshu Dubey Aged About 50 Years (Now 53 Years) D/o Premlal Tiwari, Working As Teacher (E-Cadre), Government Higher Secondary School, Nandeli, Block-Jaijaipur, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kumudani Bagh Dwivedi District Education Officer, Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gokul Rawte Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Siddharth Komal Pardeshi Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sanjeev Kumar Jha Director, Directorate Public Instructions, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 28/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition for willful violation of the order dated 02-12-2022, passed by the coordinate bench of this VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.28 18:30:30 +0530 2 Court in WPS No. 8218 of 2022, whereby the following direction was given to the Respondent No. 2:- “3. In view of submission of learned counsel for respective parties, this writ petition at this stage is disposed off with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide representation submitted by the petitioner at the earliest, in accordance with law.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was earlier appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, and thereafter, despite the entitlement of the petitioner, she has not been provided promotion on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I. Subsequently, she submitted her representation to the concerned authorities for considering the candidature of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Lecturer (E) (LB) on 12.09.2022, which was pending under consideration and after hearing the parties, the coordinate bench of this Court has directed the District Education Officer (respondent No.2), Sakti to decide the representation of the petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law. He would also submit that the District Education Officer, Sakti (respondent No.2) has decided the representation on 18.09.2024, but has not considered the claim of the petitioner by saying that the claim of the petitioner prior to 01-07-2018 is to be decided by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, as he was the employee of Panchayat Department before 01-07-2018. He would also submit that despite direction passed by this Court to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 has not decided the representation, which is a willful violation of the order dated 02-12-2022. 3 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 4. From perusal of para 3 of the order dated 02-12-2022, the coordinate bench of this Court has directed the respondent No. 2 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner, at the earliest in accordance with law. In compliance of the order dated 02-12-2022, the representation of the petitioner was considered by the respondent No. 2 by passing the order on 18-09-2024, in which it has been mentioned that after absorption of the Teacher (LB Cadre) with the School Education Department, they would be treated as the employee of School Education Department and after examination of their eligibility, they would be considered for promotion as per their entitlement and it has also been mentioned that before the absorption i.e. before 01-07-2018, the petitioner was the employee of Panchayat and Rural Development Department, the claim of the employee prior to 01-07-2018 is to be decided by the said Panchayat and Rural Development Department and the claim of the employee prior to their absorption are not related with the School Education Department. 5. From perusal of the direction made in para 3 of the order dated 02-12-2022 and order dated 18-09-2024 passed by the respondent No. 2, I do not find any willful violation of the order dated 02-12-2022, which warrants issuance of notice in the present contempt petition. 6. The petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law against the order dated 18-09-2024 passed by respondent No. 2. 4 7. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved