1 2025:CGHC:6791 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 176 of 2025 Rajendra Biswal S/o Mr. Premsanker Biswal Aged About 49 Years R/o Pankhatiya Tall Road, Purani Basti, Kharsia, Dist.- Raigarh 496662 (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Niharika Barika W/o Jaideep Singh Aged About 54 Years Secretary, De- partment Of Electronics And Information Technology. Address- Mantralay, Ma- hanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shri Prabhat Malik S/o Mahendra Singh Malik Aged About 35 Years Chief Ex- ecutive Officer, Chhattisgarh Infortech Promotion Society Address- Third Floor, State Data Center Building, New Circuit House, Civil Lines, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ... Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy Govt. Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 06.02.2025 1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of order of this Court dated 15.01.2025 passed in WPS No. 310/2025 (Annexure C/1). Vide order dated 15.01.2025, this Court has passed the following order/direction:- “Looking to the aforesaid aspect of the matter and further considering the fact that the petitioner is working since last 16 years and his services were found to be worthy. Further, in the document issued by the respondents, ti has specifically mentioned that the services of the petitioner is required, as such, 2 I deem it appropriate to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 20.09.2024. The petitioner is allowed to work in the office of respondent no. 2. The petitioner is directed to file a separate affidavit explaining the delay in filing this petition as the order was passed on 20.09.2024.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after obtaining the certified copy of the above order, petitioner on 17.01.2025 made a representation before the respondent no. 2 for taking over charge as In- charge Admin (Manager-e-Procurement) in pursuant to order dated 15.01.2025 passed by this Court (Annexure C/2). However petitioner is not given the charge under the post he held earlier instead given the charge of New Office Builing (CBD)/RDA Building Management. He further contended that the new post would amount to the demotion of the petitioner as compared to the earlier post which was held before termination and also in the new office there is lack of proper sitting arrangement, no specific table and chair assigned to the petitioner. Therefore, he pleads to punish the contemnors in accordance of law for willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 15.01.2025 passed in WPS No. 310 of 2025 in the interest of justice and direction may be given to the respondent no. 2 to issue proper order to re-instate the petitioner to the same post as it was held by him on the date of passing of the removal order dated 20.09.2024. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submit that the respondents authority has already complied with the said order of this Court and there is no willful disobedience caused on their part. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner` and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 3 5. Perusal of document (Annexure C/1) reveals that the petitioner was allowed to work in the office of the respondent no. 2 On such order the respondent no. 2 restored the petitioner in the office and directed the petitioner to take charge of the office from 27.01.2025. However, the petitioner has raised his concern towards no giving him the charge of the post which he was holding earlier, instead he has been given the charge of New Office Building (CBD)/RDA Building Management and about the lack of proper sitting arrangement in the said office. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order so passed by this Court was purely based upon the restoration of the petitioner in the office and not about the post which he was holding before getting terminated, so there seems to be no disobedience on the part of the respondent no. 2. Moreover there is complete compliance of the order passed by this court. 6. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that, it’s not a case of willful disobedience/non-compliance of the order dated 15.01.2025 passed in WPS No. 310/2025 passed by this Court. However, if petitioner is having any grievance(s) regarding the order passed by the respondent authority, he will be at liberty to file appropriate application/petition before an appropriate Forum/Court. 7. Subsequently, this contempt petition is closed and is accordingly disposed of. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza