1 2025:CGHC:3073 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1470 of 2024 1 - Anit Gaura S/o Late Shri Gayanand, Aged About 36 Years R/o Qtr. No. 298, Miners Colony, Ward No. 7, Bishrampur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Dr. Prem Prakash Mishra Chairman - Cum- Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Office At Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Ajay Tiwari, General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bishrampur Area, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For applicant : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Adv. (Hon’ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 17-1-2025 1 This contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 11/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been preferred by the applicant for non-compliance of order (Annexure C-1) dated 22-8-2024 passed in WPS No. 5024/2024. 2 Vide order (Annexure C-1) dated 22-8-2024 passed in WPS No. Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.01.21 11:08:18 +0530 2 5024/2024, this Court passed following order in para 5, 6 and 7 as under :- “5. Be that as it may, apart from Annexure P-2, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order before concerned respondents/ competent authority. On such representation is made, it is directed that the concerned respondents/ competent authority to take decision on the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law within stipulated time preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of presentation of representation. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. All pending applications if any, stand disposed of. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” 3 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though representation of the applicant has been rejected by the respondents vide Annexure R-2/1 dated 7-1-2025, but it has not been specifically mentioned as to how many criminal cases have been registered against the applicant. As per his instructions, there were 3 criminal cases registered against the applicant, out of which, in 2 cases, applicant has been acquitted and one case has been disposed of on the basis of compromise. He further submits that, in that view of the matter, only on the basis of aforesaid criminal antecedents, he cannot be deprived from granting dependent appointment. 4 In reply, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, referring 3 to their return, would submit that vide order under contempt, direction was to decide the representation filed by the applicant and the same has been decided vide order (Annexure R-2/1) dated 7-1-2025. Various criminal cases have been registered against applicant, out of which, 3 cases have been admitted by learned counsel for applicant also. Apart from that, various other Istgasha cases have been registered against applicant. It is submitted that, on consideration, applicant’s representation/application for dependent appointment has been rejected. 5 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6 Since, vide order under contempt (Annexure C-1) dated 22-8-2024, direction was to decide the representation filed by the applicant and the representation has been decided vide order (Annexure R-2/1) dated 7-1- 2025, which shows that the order under contempt has been complied with, therefore, no case for contempt against the respondents is made out. If the applicant is dissatisfied with the order Annexure R-2/1, then he may file appropriate proceeding for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law. 7 Accordingly, instant contempt proceeding is dropped. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak