1 2026:CGHC:24859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 56 of 2025 • Saj Kumar Ratre S/o Shri Pritam Lal Ratre Aged About 42 Years Working As Attendant (Regular), At Outline Dispensary Masaniya Kalan, Tahsil Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. Shri Mukesh Kumar Bansal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ritesh Kumar Agrawal Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate For Respondents : None. 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 01.10.2024 passed in WPS. No. 6165 of 2024, wherein, writ Court disposed of the matter in following terms :- “5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of grievance raised, submission of counsel for the respective parties in particular submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the representation dated 10.06.2024 (Annexure P/1) forwarded through registered SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.06.19 14:03:56 +0530 2 post on 10.06.2024 is pending before the Respondents No. 1 & 2, the writ petition at this stage is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 to take decision on the pending representation in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The petitioner made a representation along with copy of order on 07.10.2024, wherein, he stated his grievance in categorical terms. It appears that the representation of the petitioner dated 07.10.2024 has already been decided by the authority concerned vide order dated 31.05.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to decide his pending representation dated 10.06.2024, whereas, the authority concerned has decided representation dated 07.10.2024, and thus, the order passed in writ petition has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. 4. I have heard Mr. Patel at length and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Pursuant to order dated 01.10.2024, the petitioner made a representation to respondent on 07.10.2024, wherein, he pleaded his grievance and authority concerned has decided his representation dated 07.10.2024 and impliedly the authority concerned has decided the representation dated 06.10.2024 too. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, it appears that the respondents have already complied with the orders passed in the writ petition. 7. Accordingly, contempt proceeding is dropped. Notice issued to respondents 3 stand discharged. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant