1 / 3 2026:CGHC:5853 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1739 of 2025 1 - Yadvendra Singh S/o Late Shri Awadh Bihari Aged About 70 Years Worked As Subedar (M), Superannuation On Dated 28/02/2017, Worked Under The Office Of Police Head Quarter, General Branch Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgrh, Mb No. 9098623289 2 - Amosh Khakha S/o Dhan Viraj Khakha Aged About 61 Years (61 Years 09 Month), Worked As Subedar (M) Auditor, Will Superannuation On 31/07/2025, Working Under The Office Of Police Head Quarter, General Branch Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Distt. Raipur, Permanent R/o Village Khutera Karamtoli, Post Khutera, P.S. And Tahsil Kansabel, Distt. Jushpur, Chhattisgarh. Mb No. 9406364996 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mr. Ashok Juneja Ips Posted At The Time Of Order Passed By This Hon'ble Court As Director General Of Police, Police Hqrs, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 495001. 2 - Mr. Arun Dev Gautam Presently Working On The Post Of The Additional Charge Director General Of Police, Police Hqrs. Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 495001. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Vijay K.Deshmukh Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.02.04 17:47:42 +0530 2 / 3 02/02/2026 1. This contempt petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 19.09.2024 passed in WPS No.5981 of 2016 and other connected matters. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Writ Court while considering claim of petitioner along with other petitioners has categorically made an observation granting liberty to petitioner to submit representation within a period of one month and further directed the authority to take appropriate decision on such representation taking into consideration the observation made by this Court in the order within specified period. Respondent authority have though taken a decision on representation submitted by petitioner, however, observation made by this Court has not been taken note of in its words and spirit and have rejected the claim of petitioner . 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order passed in writ petition . 4. Operative part of order passed in writ petition is reproduced hereunder: “9……….. the respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the next higher post and they are also directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for payment of arrears of salary of post-Subedar (M) from 23.08.2016 till their promotion to the next higher post or retirement. The respondent authorities are further directed to take care of the pay scale as prior to 23.08.2016 the petitioners were getting a higher pay scale of Subedar (M). The petitioners would be at liberty to make a representation(s) before the respondent authorities within a period of one month and in turn, the respondent 3 / 3 authorities are directed to take an appropriate decision on such representation(s) taking into consideration the observations made by this Court in this order, preferably, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. Perusal of order would show that while disposing of writ petition, direction was issued to respondent authority to consider the claim of petitioner for promotion to next higher post, petitioner was directed to submit fresh representation and further directed the respondent authority to take appropriate decision on such representation taking into consideration the observation made by this Court in the aforementioned order. It is not in dispute that the authority have taken decision on the claim of petitioner and rejected the same vide order dated 25.04.2025. 6. In the aforementioned facts of case, when respondent authorities have already taken a decision on claim of petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, respondents have complied with the direction issued by this Court for taking decision on claim of petitioner. Hence, I do not find any good ground to continue with this contempt petition. 7. Contempt petition is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty to petitioner to take recourse to law against the decision taken by respondent authority. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen