1 2025:CGHC:20528 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved On: 25.02.2025 Judgment Pronounced On: 05.05.2025 CONT No. 1417 of 2024 1 - Bhanupratap S/o Shri Teras Ram Mire Aged About 47 Years R/o C-106, Housing Board Colony, Raipur Naka Near Hemchand University, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Nand Kishor Rai S/o Shri Bk Rai Aged About 46 Years Having Permanent R/o Plot No. 159, Kosabadi, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Abhishek Shukla S/o Shri Ram Pramod Shukla Aged About 43 Years R/o C-19, Raheja Nirwana, Kachna, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rahul Gupta S/o Shri Ramanand Gupta Aged About 52 Years R/o Mogra 78, Block-B, Taalpuri International Colony, Bhilai Civic Centre, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Akash Sharma S/o Shri Ashok Sharma Aged About 35 Years Having Permanent R/o House No. 10, Phase 01, Mahdev Vatika Colony, Amleshwar, Tehsil - Patan, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Amitabh Sharma S/o Shri Late Narendra Prasad Sharma Aged About 56 Years R/o Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar, Gol Chowk, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Girish Chandra Verma S/o Shri Ram Kumar Verma Aged About 49 Years R/o 105, Jota Road, Near Krishna Nagar Teacher Colony, Tilda Newra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 2 1 - Dr. Rohit Yadav The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajesh Singh Rana Chief Executive Officer, Head Quarter - Near Urja Shiksha Udyan, Vip Road (Airport Road), Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge C A V Judgment 1. The instant contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners herein, alleging non-compliance of this Court’s order dated 20.09.2024 passed in WPS No. 5855/2024 as well as order dated 25.10.2024 passed in MCC No. 955/2024. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that this contempt petition was listed for hearing on 24.01.2025 and this Hon’ble Court after going through the records of the case has observed as under: “Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that representation of the applicants has been decided vide Annexure R/1 (page 12 & 13 of the reply of the respondent no.2) But perusal of those documents shows that though meeting of DPC was convened and minutes of the meeting with regard to promotion was also reduced in writing, but prior to putting signature by Chairman of DPC, it was found that there was some confusion with regard to rules and procedures, therefore, the 3 matter of promotion of the petitioners could not be reached into logical end. Having considered the aforesaid facts, it is found that order under contempt has not been complied with by the respondents in letter and spirit and it seems that they are flouting the order of the Court. At this stage, Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 seeks time to comply with order under contempt. As prayed, two weeks’ time is granted.” 3. He further contended that the bare perusal of the aforesaid order/direction passed/issued by the Hon’ble Court would make it quite clear that the Hon’ble Court caught hold of the fact that the Respondent no. 2 is trying to mislead the Court by placing misconceived facts/reasons to not release the report of DPC Meeting and has specifically observed that Respondent no. 2 is deliberately flouting the directions issued by this Court. Based on the observation made by the Hon’ble Court, the Counsel for Respondent no. 2 requested for some time to comply with the order under contempt and on the statement made by the Respondent no. 2 seeking two weeks’ time to comply with the earlier direction of the Hon’ble Court, this Court granted time and posted the matter for hearing in the week commencing 10th February, 2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners again contended that in the letter dated 03.02.2025, Respondent no. 2 states that inter-se seniority between the employees is hindering the process and there is confusion regarding the rules in the process of DPC convened on 16.07.2024. the said statement is totally fallacious 4 and is violative of the existing and relevant rule governing the service of all CREDA employee is “CREDA Service Condition (Recruitment and Appeal) Rules 2004” which lays down the criteria for promotion from class II to Class I and Class III to Class II is “Merit cum seniority”. It is stated here that when promotion os to be done on “Merit cum seniority” basis then greater emphasis will be given to merit instead of seniority. The seniority comes in to the role only when the ability and merit of two eligible candidates are equal. This contention has also been established by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.V. Sivaiah Vs. K. Addanki Babu, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720 wherein the Apex Court has held that the principle of “merit-cum-seniority” lays greater emphasis on merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role. Seniority is to e given weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal”. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 contended that it is pertinent to not that the Petitioner along with other employees had filed the writ petition bearing WPS No. 5855/2024 titled as Bhanupratap and others Vs. State of CG and another, contending the non-release of the report/minutes of the DPC Meeting held on 16.07.2024 and non-issuance of the order of promotions of the petitioners in which this Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass the order dated 20.09.2024 and held that- “4. Be that as it may, after considering the submissions made by both the parties at bar and on perusal of the documents available on record, 5 this petition is disposed of, at this stage, permitting the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the respondent/competent authority projecting all his grievances as projecting in this writ petition along with the copy of petition within 30 days from today and in turn respondent/competent authority is expected to consider and decide the same within the period of 120 days from submission of such representation in accordance with the relevant rules and law applicable to the case of petitioner. 5. This Court does not express anything on the merits of this case. 6. accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.” 6. He further contended that it is noteworthy that pursuant to the order dated 20.09.2024, the petitioners also filed their detailed representation dated 23.09.2024 before the Respondent no. 2. However, instead of waiting for consideration and decision on their representation within 120 days time period as set by this Hon’ble Court, the petitioners again approached this Hon’ble Court prematurely & filed a MCC No. 955/2024 titled Bhanupratap and others Vs. State of CG and another. Upon hearing the parties, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to modify its earlier order & directed the Respondent no. 2 to decide representation of the petitioners by 8th November, 2024. The Hon’ble Court vide order dated 25.10.2024 held that- “4. In view of above, the order dated 20.09.2024 passed in WPS No. 5855/2024 is modified to the extent that the respondent no. 2 shall decide the representation submitted by the applicants by 8th November, 2024. 6 5. With this observation and direction, the MCC is disposed of.” 7. In compliance of the order dated 24.01.2025, the office of answering Respondent no. 2, has passed the order dated 03.02.2025 and has decided the representations of the Petitioners in terms of order dated 20.09.2024, 25.10.2024, 24.01.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court. Copy of order dated 03.02.2025 is already filed with covering memo dated 10.02.2025. 8. Learned Counsel for Respondent no. 2 further contended that the respondents had duly complied with the order of Hon’ble Court and also on 08.11.2024, the petitioners were further informed that their representation was decided and rejected due to the discrepancies discovered in the DPC process, & they were also informed that DPC will reconvene its meeting because the discrepancies needed to be rectified to ensure fairness in the promotion process of all the candidates. That further vide order dated 03.02.2025 also, the petitioner were duly informed and notified regarding rejection of their representations. 9. Counsel for Respondent no. 2 further contended that it is very crucial to note that the petitioner has already preferred a fresh writ petition before this Hon’ble Court which is numbered and titled as WPS No. 774/2025 Bhanupratap and others vs State of CG and another challenging the order dated 08.11.2024 before even filing of the present contempt proceedings in Contempt Case No. 1417/2024. That the above fact has been purposely concealed 7 from this Hon’ble Court. That the above fact has been purposely concealed from this Hon’ble Court. That, the present contempt proceedings against the answering respondent is a personal vendetta being carried out by the petitioners to showcase the answering respondent in bad light and it is a grave misuse of the process of this Hon’ble Court in carrying multiple proceedings on the same subject matter. 10. Learned Counsel for Respondent no. 2 placed his reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2002) 5 SCC 352, Jhareshwar Prasad Paul Vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly has held that: “11.*** It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition, be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, 8 which is alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order…” 11. In another judgment in (2014) 3 SCC 373 Sudhir Vasudev Chairman and Managing Director, ONGC Vs M. George Ravishekaran and others, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that- “19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self- determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be 9 considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul Vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly, V.M. Manohar Prasad Vs. N. Ratnam Rajul, Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. V. Gautam Goswamil and Union of India Vs. Subedar Devassy PV.” 12. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 13. Perusal of record shows that the petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for seeking interference of this Court to direct Respondent no. 2 to follow/comply with the CREDA Service Rules and Regulations 2004 read with circular dated 15.01.2021 issued by the State Government in respect of releasing of report of DPC proceedings as well as consequent order of promotion. In the present case, it is an admitted position that a meeting of DPC was held on 16.07.2024. Respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 26.09.2024 issued direction to Respondent no. 2 to release/publish the report of DPC. The petitioners have filed a writ 10 petition bearing WPS No. 5855/2024 contending the non-release of the report/minutes of the DPC Meeting held on 16.07.2024 and non-issuance of the order of promotions of the petitioners in which this Court vide its order dated 20.09.2024 permitted the petitioners to make a detailed representation before the respondent/competent authority projecting all their grievances within 30 days and in turn directed the respondent authority to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of 120 days in accordance with the relevant rules and law applicable to the case of petitioners. 14. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 20.09.2024 the petitioners filed their detailed representation dated 23.09.2024 before Respondent no. 2. The petitioners again filed MCC bearing no. 955/2024 wherein the order dated 20.09.2024 passed in WPS No. 5855/2024 was modified to the extent that the respondent no. 2 shall decide the representation submitted by the applicants by 8th November, 2024. 15. The case-in-hand was listed on 24.01.2025 wherein the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the order under Contempt has not been complied with by the respondents in letter and spirit and it seems that they are flouting the order of the Court. Upon which the counsel for respondent no. 2 prayed for time to comply with order under Contempt. In compliance of the order dated 24.01.2025, the office of answering Respondent no. 2 has passed the order dated 03.02.2025 and has decided the 11 representations of the petitioners in terms of order dated 20.09.2024, 25.10.2021, 24.01.2025 passed by this Court. Also, the petitioners have already filed a writ petition bearing WPS No. 774/2025 challenging the order dated 08.11.2024 before even filing of the present contempt proceedings in Contempt case no. 1417/2024. 16. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the Case, considering the submissions of the counsels for the respective parties, and perusing the records, this Court is of the considered view that the Respondent no. 2 has complied with the order passed by this Court in letter and spirit and there is no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents. The respondents stand discharged of the contempt proceedings. 17. Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima