1 2026:CGHC:24853 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1185 of 2025  Pranav Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Subhash Prasad Mishra Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Development Extension Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus  Mr. Bhimsen, Under Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. V. Jayant Kumar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.06 .2026 1. The petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging disobedience of order dated 20.05.2025 passed in WPS. No. 3835 of 2025, whereby, the respondent No. 1/competent authority was directed to decide representation of the petitioner within a period of 30 days. 2. The services of the petitioner were transferred from Kanker to Dantewada vide order dated 01.05.2025 and against said transfer order writ petition was preferred and representation was also made on 16.05.2025. Pursuant to order dated 20.05.2025 passed in writ petition, petitioner made afresh representation on 26.05.2025 along with copy of order. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.06.19 15:40:54 +0530 2 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has not decided the representation made by the petitioner rather different representations have been decided, and thus, the respondent has flouted the order passed in the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur would submit that earlier representation made by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 22.04.2025 and subsequent representation has been rejected vide order dated 02.08.2025. He would submit that order passed in writ petition has already been complied with. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Perusal of the order would show that date of representation is not mentioned. It appears that the services of the petitioner were transferred and against said order a representation was made, which was rejected by the respondent vide order dated 22.06.2025. The petitioner again made a representation pursuant to order passed in writ petition and same has again been dismissed by the authority concerned vide order dated 02.08.2025. 7. It appears that the respondent has complied with the order passed by this Court and this fact is evident from the findings recorded by the said authority in para 3 of order Annexure R/1 dated 02.08.2025. 8. Accordingly, contempt proceeding is dropped. Notice issued to respondent stand discharged. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant