1 2026:CGHC:7922 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1833 of 2025 1 - Dr. Akhilesh Dewangan S/o Lakhan Lal Dewangan Aged About 41 Years R/o Street No. 5, Jail Vihar Colony, Village Rudri Tahsil District - Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri Amit Kataria Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dr. Priyanka Shukla Director Health Services Cum Chief Executive Officer, State Nodal Agency, Iv Floor Sector-19, North Block Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Abhishek Chandra Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 12/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 03.07.2025, passed by this Court in WPC No.3386 of 2025. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.16 11:31:17 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that order passed in writ petition is to pay undisputed amount of claim of petitioner. Accordingly after passing of an order, further amount has been paid on 15.10.2025 and 24.11.2025. He submits that in the letter written to the petitioner, it is specifically mentioned that the amount is to be paid periodically after it becomes due and it is a continuous process. Amount due to petitioner subsequently will be further paid to petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that claim of petitioner was about Rs.97,36,364/- and according to letter handed over to petitioner, it only mentions the total amount paid about Rs.60,00,000/-. More than Rs.30,00,000/0 is still pending due. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that there is no specification of the amount, either in the writ petition or in the order and respondents have paid the amount according to the calculation made by them. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the direction issued by the writ Court in order dated 03.07.2025. 6. Neither petitioner in writ petition has specifically pleaded the outstanding amount due on date of filing of writ petition nor there is specific mention of total amount due, in the order, which is subject matter of contempt. 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case in the opinion of this Court, direction issued by the writ Court in its order dated 03.07.2025 has been substantially complied with. 3 8. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding initiated against respondents is dropped. Notice issued to respondents stands discharged. Contempt petition is closed. 9. Petitioner will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate authority for redressal of his remaining grievance. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram