1 2026:CGHC:22019 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 458 of 2021 1 - Yadram Yadav S/o Bholaram Yadav Aged About 56 Years Constable G. D. No. 810480147, CRPF, Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Rajeev Rai Dy. Inspector General Of Police, Range CRPF, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh 2 - P. R. Jambholkar Dy. Inspector General Of Police, Range CRPF, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI along with Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this Contempt Petition alleging willful disobedience of order dated 27.06.2019 passed in WPS No.4684 of 2019. RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.05.13 10:46:23 +0530 2 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submits that by the order which is subject matter of contemp, the Writ Court has allowed writ petition in part and has quashed Clause No.iii of order impugned therein dated 11.03.2019 and therefore, respondent ought to have considered salary to pay to the petitioner at par with the salary which is being paid to the counterpart. They are not paying salary to the petitioner as is being paid to the counterparts. The respondent authorities have willfully disobeyed the order which is subject matter of the contempt petition. 3. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, counsel for the respondents would oppose the submission and submits that in the order which is subject matter of the contempt the Writ Court has clearly observed whether petitioner is entitled for any monetary benefits or not, whether entitled for any consequential benefits or not are to be decided only after conclusion of departmental enquiry/final adjudication of pending departmental enquiry. He pointed out that respondents have submitted an affidavit showing that the departmental enquiry as of now have been completed and it is forwarded to the President for concurrence. During pendency of the departmental enquiry the petitioner after attaining age of superannuation stood retired from service on 31.01.2023. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, this contempt petition is filed alleging willful disobedience on the part of respondent authorities. The operative portion of the order which is subject matter of the contempt petition is extracted below : “8. Under the normal circumstances, the intervening period can only be decided subject to the outcome of the departmental enquiry. The fact that the Department has reinstated the petitioner and initiated a fresh enquiry altogether, coupled with the fact that the earlier order of punishment has already been quashed by this Court, the position practically would be that he stands restored to his original position as he stood prior to the issuance of the compulsory retirement order dated 21.01.2009. Since the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner is still pending consideration, the intervening period i.e. whether the petitioner would be entitled for any monetary benefit or not and whether the petitioner would be entitled for any consequential relief or not, are all which could be decided only after the departmental enquiry is finally adjudicated upon. The operative part of the impugned order so far as Clause no. iii is concerned is one which could be passed only after conclusion of the departmental enquiry and not at this juncture. 9. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position as it stands, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed to the extent that so far as Clause No.iii in the impugned order dated 11.03.2019 is concerned, the same is set aside/quashed as of now and the right of the Department is reserved for deciding the status of the intervening period subject to the outcome of the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner.” 5. Perusal of the above extracted portion of order which is subject matter of the contempt petition would shows that the Court has 4 taken note of facts that the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner is pending consideration and further that whether petitioner would be entitled for any monetary benefits for the intervening period or not, whether entitled for any consequential benefits or not, are all which could be decided only when departmental enquiry is finally adjudicated upon. The Court has further taken into consideration that the right of the department is reserved for deciding the status of the intervening period subject to outcome of the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner. As it is not disputed by the parties that departmental enquiry which was initiated against the petitioner has not been finalized as final order has not been passed. 6. In above facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner failed to make out a case of willful disobedience on the part of respondent authorities. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents is dropped, notice is discharged, and the contempt petition is closed, reserving liberty with the petitioner to take recourse to law for redressal of grievance. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi