1 CGHC010255632026 2026:CGHC:28365 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 880 of 2026 Vikram Singh S/o Sukhram Singh, Aged About 51 Years Occupation Service, Presently Posted As Panchayat Secretary At Gram Panchayat Malgawan, Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Shri Jitendra Kumar Painkra Posted As Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Office Of The Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Near Jain Temple, Near Chaupati, Chopra Para, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Siddharth Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed W.P.(S) No. 9466 of 2019 challenging the calculation of grade pay and the consequential recovery order. The said SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.07.10 12:16:26 +0530 2 writ petition was disposed of on 24.02.2026 with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation before respondent No. 4, who was directed to consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within the stipulated period. 2. It is further submitted that, in compliance with the order dated 24.02.2026, the petitioner submitted a representation on 09.03.2026 along with a copy of the said order. However, instead of considering and deciding the representation as directed by this Court, the respondent/contemnor, vide communication dated 14.05.2026, merely stated that he was not the competent authority to rectify the alleged defect in the calculation made by the Panchayat Department and forwarded the representation to the concerned Panchayat Department for appropriate action. Thus, the respondent No. 4 failed to comply with the specific directions issued by this Court within the stipulated time and has, therefore, committed wilful disobedience of the order dated 24.02.2026. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, particularly the communication dated 14.05.2026, this Court finds that, pursuant to the order dated 3 24.02.2026, respondent No. 4 has considered the petitioner's representation and passed a reasoned communication order thereon. In the said communication/order, respondent No. 4 has observed that he is not the competent authority to rectify the alleged defect in the calculation made by the Panchayat Department and has, accordingly, forwarded the matter to the concerned Panchayat Department for taking appropriate action, if so required. 4. Since the direction issued by this Court was only to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation, the same stands complied with and hence no case of wilful disobedience of the order of this Court is made out. 5. Accordingly, the contempt petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib